Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753532AbbFXSql (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:46:41 -0400 Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:59112 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753091AbbFXSqd (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:46:33 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: David Lang Cc: Ingo Molnar , Martin Steigerwald , Linus Torvalds , Andy Lutomirski , "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" , David Herrmann , Djalal Harouni , Greg KH , Havoc Pennington , One Thousand Gnomes , Tom Gundersen , Daniel Mack References: <20150624080502.GA23842@gmail.com> <6295881.qFxhe0B0Ak@merkaba> <20150624131850.GA7346@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:41:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: (David Lang's message of "Wed, 24 Jun 2015 10:39:52 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: <87r3p1ar0c.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX18wKuh4fov+KvrQcPxE4c49i+GnP/uIAuk= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.3.205.90 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.4996] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;David Lang X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 741 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.06 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 3.7 (0.5%), b_tie_ro: 2.6 (0.3%), parse: 1.17 (0.2%), extract_message_metadata: 23 (3.1%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.34 (0.2%), tests_pri_-1000: 10 (1.4%), tests_pri_-950: 2.2 (0.3%), tests_pri_-900: 1.86 (0.3%), tests_pri_-400: 32 (4.4%), check_bayes: 30 (4.1%), b_tokenize: 10 (1.4%), b_tok_get_all: 7 (1.0%), b_comp_prob: 3.9 (0.5%), b_tok_touch_all: 2.4 (0.3%), b_finish: 0.91 (0.1%), tests_pri_0: 339 (45.8%), tests_pri_500: 321 (43.4%), poll_dns_idle: 309 (41.7%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: kdbus: to merge or not to merge? X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:00:52 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1030 Lines: 29 David Lang writes: > On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> And the thing is, in hindsight, after such huge flamewars, years down the line, >> almost never do I see the following question asked: 'what were we thinking merging >> that crap??'. If any question arises it's usually along the lines of: 'what was >> the big fuss about?'. So I think by and large the process works. > > counterexamples, devfs, tux The biggest I can think of cgroups. The way cgroups connect to processes instead of resources (semantically) and the fact that controllers are different from fundamental entities like schedulers. Of course I don't think "What were we thinking" I remember it all too well in that case. I think "What do we do now that we have made this mess". Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/