Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 07:38:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 07:37:01 -0500 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:43721 "HELO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 07:36:02 -0500 Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:33:34 +0100 (CET) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: To: Martin Dalecki Cc: Linus Torvalds , , Jens Axboe Subject: Re: A modest proposal -- We need a patch penguin In-Reply-To: <3C568C52.2060707@evision-ventures.com> Message-ID: 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 On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Martin Dalecki wrote: > >One "patch penguin" scales no better than I do. In fact, I will claim > >that most of them scale a whole lot worse. > Bla bla bla... Just tell how frequenty do I have to tell the world, > that the read_ahead array is a write only variable inside the kernel > and therefore not used at all?????!!!!!!!!!! tell Jens. He goes about fixing it all, not just the most visible pieces that showed how much the Linux block IO code sucked. And guess what? His patches are being accepted, and the Linux 2.5 block IO code is evolving rapidly. Sometimes keeping broken code around as an incentive to fix it *for real* is better than trying to massage the broken code somewhat. a patch penguin doesnt solve this particular problem, by definition he just wont fix the block IO code. any other 'examples'? 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/