Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 20:59:54 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Rene Herman <rene.herman@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: about modularization
Message-ID: <20070803185954.GB20580@elte.hu>
References: <cdc89fe60708030507r29283942mbb9947edbe04e23a@mail.gmail.com> <20070803131900.GA26203@elte.hu> <46B36A43.6030101@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46B36A43.6030101@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 992
Lines: 26


* Rene Herman <rene.herman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 08/03/2007 03:19 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > One of the authors of the IO scheduler code said it on lkml recently 
> > that while modularization of IO scheduler had advantages too, in 
> > retrospect he wishes they would not have made IO schedulers modular 
> > and now that decision cannot be undone.
> 
> Just as a matter of interest -- why can't it? (a pointer to a list 
> archive if you have one, or a name so I can look for it myself if you 
> don't, will do as answer).

some apps depend on AS, some on CFQ, and once you expose something to 
users it's _very_ hard to remove it, even if the technical arguments are 
strong.

  http://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2007/04/16/23

	Ingo
-
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/