Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262725AbVBBTaT (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:30:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262482AbVBBTaS (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:30:18 -0500 Received: from mail.joq.us ([67.65.12.105]:39860 "EHLO sulphur.joq.us") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262509AbVBBT3w (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:29:52 -0500 To: Lee Revell Cc: Ingo Molnar , Nick Piggin , Paul Davis , Con Kolivas , linux , CK Kernel , utz , Andrew Morton , alexn@dsv.su.se, Rui Nuno Capela , Chris Wright , Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: [patch, 2.6.11-rc2] sched: RLIMIT_RT_CPU_RATIO feature References: <20050124085902.GA8059@elte.hu> <20050124125814.GA31471@elte.hu> <20050125135613.GA18650@elte.hu> <87sm4opxto.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050126070404.GA27280@elte.hu> <87fz0neshg.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <1106782165.5158.15.camel@npiggin-nld.site> <874qh3bo1u.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <1106796360.5158.39.camel@npiggin-nld.site> <87pszr1mi1.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <20050127113530.GA30422@elte.hu> <873bwfo8br.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> <1107370770.3104.136.camel@krustophenia.net> From: "Jack O'Quin" Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:31:12 -0600 In-Reply-To: <1107370770.3104.136.camel@krustophenia.net> (Lee Revell's message of "Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:59:30 -0500") Message-ID: <87pszikbcv.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Corporate Culture, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1697 Lines: 36 > On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 23:10 -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote: >> Is nobody responsible for figuring out what users need? I didn't >> realize kernel development had become so disconnected. Lee Revell writes: > IMHO the requirements gathering process usually works well. When > someone with a redhat.com (for example) address posts a patch there's an > implicit assumption that it addresses the needs of their gadzillions of > users. Still, RH hires professional kernel developers, people who > produce known good code will always have an easier time getting patches > merged. If Linus & co. don't know you from Adam and you show up with a > patch that claims to solve a big problem, then I would expect them to be > a bit skeptical. Especially if the problem is either low priority or > not well understood by the major distros. I guess you're right, Lee. I hadn't thought of it that way. It just looks broken to me because we have no standing in any normal kernel requirements process. That's a shame, but it does seem less like a systemic issue. I think the distributions are getting more interested in these issues. Maybe that will help. The RT-LSM is available as a module in Debian sarge. Back when I did OS development for a living, there was a huge focus on defining user requirements. But, our kernel development was never organizationally separate from the rest of the OS. That makes a big difference. -- joq - 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/