* Linus Torvalds "Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:09:28 -0700 (PDT)" > > On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: >> >> I'm going to change topic big time because your sentence above >> perfectly applies to the O(1) scheduler too. > > I disagree to a large degree. > > We almost never have problems with code you can "think about". > > Sure, bugs happen, but code that everybody runs the same generally doesn't > break. So a CPU scheduler doesn't worry me all that much. CPU schedulers > are "easy". > > What worries me is interfaces to hardware that we know looks different for > different people. That means that any testing that one person has done > doesn't necessarily translate to anything at *all* on another persons > machine. > > The timer problems we had when merging the stuff in 2.6.21 just scarred > me. I'd _really_ hate to have to go through that again. And no, the > "gradual" thing where the patch that actually *enables* something isn't > very gradual at all, so that's the absolutely worst kind of thing, because > then people can "git bisect" to the point where it got enabled and tell us > that's where things broke, but that doesn't actually say anything at all > about the patch that actually implements the new behaviour. > > So the "enable" kind of patch is actually the worst of the lot, when it > comes to hardware. > > When it comes to pure software algorithms, and things like schedulers, > you'll still obviously have timing issues and tuning, but generally things > *work*, which makes it a lot easier to debug and describe. > > Linus
Seconded (obviously). -- -o--=O`C #oo'L O <___=E M - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
