Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:37:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:37:33 -0500 Received: from [195.63.194.11] ([195.63.194.11]:17159 "EHLO mail.stock-world.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 06:37:22 -0500 Message-ID: <3C56A03C.9070107@evision-ventures.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 14:14:36 +0100 From: Martin Dalecki User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011226 X-Accept-Language: en-us, pl MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mingo@elte.hu CC: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe Subject: Re: A modest proposal -- We need a patch penguin In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: >On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Martin Dalecki wrote: > >>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. > There is nothing easier to fix then this. You just have to grep for it, or just remove the declaration and wait to be hit by this during the compilation. And most interrestingly this is *easier* then sending a patch! A patch for this particular problem tend't to 1. Touch many things (however in a trivial way!) 2. Have spurious conflicts in terms of synchronization with the overall developement tree of the maintainer in question. Now dear linus tell me a better way to deal with *this* kind of problem then using CVS for example where not a single man has the overall controll. Yes my opinnin is indeed that in reality our problem is that Linus just doesn't want to give up some kind of controll - no more no less. > > >a patch penguin doesnt solve this particular problem, by definition he >just wont fix the block IO code. > >any other 'examples' > - 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/