Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761782AbZLLFzD (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:55:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758201AbZLLFzC (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:55:02 -0500 Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:52670 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761218AbZLLFzB (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:55:01 -0500 Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 06:54:59 +0100 From: Willy Tarreau To: Con Kolivas Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Christoph Lameter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: BFS v0.311 CPU scheduler for 2.6.32 Message-ID: <20091212055459.GC32739@1wt.eu> References: <200912111124.18118.kernel@kolivas.org> <200912120937.42943.kernel@kolivas.org> <200912120155.39197.bzolnier@gmail.com> <200912121300.54803.kernel@kolivas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200912121300.54803.kernel@kolivas.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1657 Lines: 41 Hi Con, On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 01:00:54PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > If you are not doing your unpaid kernel work for yourself and for people > > who recognize/use it then upstream maintainers not liking your changes > > should really be the least of your worries.. > > > > Wait, this does not make sense. There's a cyclical flaw in this reasoning. If > I cared about their acknowledgment, I would make it mainline mergeable and > argue a case for it, which I do not want to do. > > I'm happy to make reasonable changes to the code consistent with what people > who use it want, but what exactly is the point of making it mainline mergeable > if it will not be merged? Many people build their own kernels by : 1) applying a lot of patches on them (stable + features) 2) using machine-specific configs You will get far more testers if they can use the same kernel and just play with their config files than if they have to patch/unpatch depending on what they need to have. I personally would love to be able to add BFS into my kernels for testing purposes, comparison, and possibly to propose enhancements and fixes. But I don't want to *replace* mainline code. Also, I like to have the same kernel sources used on my desktop, notebook, eeepc, and my bootable USB key. It is a lot easier to upgrade and a lot easier to spot bugs before they strike in sensible environments. Regards, Willy -- 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/