Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751930AbZIWO7a (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:59:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751296AbZIWO73 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:59:29 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62563 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751059AbZIWO73 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:59:29 -0400 Message-ID: <4ABA37A5.4000806@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:58:45 +0300 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090814 Fedora/3.0-2.6.b3.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Walker CC: Ingo Molnar , Jonathan Corbet , Raistlin , Peter Zijlstra , claudio@evidence.eu.com, michael@evidence.eu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, johan.eker@ericsson.com, p.faure@akatech.ch, Fabio Checconi , Dhaval Giani , Steven Rostedt , Tommaso Cucinotta Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] SCHED_EDF scheduling class References: <1253615424.20345.76.camel@Palantir> <1253625878.6575.34.camel@desktop> <20090922173916.257dff1d@tpl.lwn.net> <1253663739.4317.12.camel@desktop> <20090922180611.7a47adcc@tpl.lwn.net> <1253666423.25689.30.camel@desktop> <4ABA0AA6.3010408@redhat.com> <20090923122530.GB6390@elte.hu> <1253717459.20648.39.camel@desktop> In-Reply-To: <1253717459.20648.39.camel@desktop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1821 Lines: 43 On 09/23/2009 05:50 PM, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Wed, 2009-09-23 at 14:25 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> * Avi Kivity wrote: >> >> >>>> discouraging contributions is more something that happens when you >>>> get the responses I got earlier in this thread.. >>>> >>> That's probably intentional. Whitespace fixes have their place but >>> not at this stage in a patch's lifecycle. >>> >> Exactly. What might make sense is to scan linux-next for new commits >> that show serious cleanliness trouble - and send fix patches to the >> parties involved. That's a real effort and brings the code forward. >> > Often times when a patch is at youngest that when you want to catch > these issues .. This EDF patch will likely get submitted more than > twice. If you catch all the minor problems first you will not be dealing > with them later when it comes time to include the code. > Not true, you want to address the major issues first. What's the point of fixing whitespace if the whole approach is rejected? if it has to undergo a rewrite? (not an opinion on EDF btw, just as an example) > In this case the author is not totally aware of how to submit this > code.. I don't think it's at all inappropriate to comment on that. His > next submission will likely be much cleaner and nicer. It may even speed > up the inclusion process since he'll be more easily able to submit the > code (with practice and comments from us). > Give people some credit. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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/