On Wed, 2007-25-07 at 08:47 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > Heh. Here we have a VM developer expressing his interest in the problem > space, and you offer him a steaming jug of STFU because he doesn't say > what you want to hear. I wonder how many killfiles you just entered. >
Agreed. (a bit OT) People should understand that it's not (I think) about a desktop workload vs enterprise workloads war. I see it mostly as a progression versus regressions trade-off. And adding potentially useless or unmaintained code is a regression from the maintainers POV. The best way to justify a patch and have it integrated is to have a scientific testing method with repeatable numbers. Con has done so for his patch, his benchmark demonstrated good improvements. But I feel some of his supporters have indirectly harmed his cause by their comments. Also, the fact that Con recently stopped maintaining his work out of frustration also don't help having his patch merged. Again I'm not personally pushing this patch, I don't need it. Con has worked for many years on two area that still cause problems for desktop users: scheduler interactivity and pagecache trashing. Now that the scheduler has been fixed, let's have the VM fixed too. Sorry for the slightly OT post, and please don't start a flame war... - Eric - 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/
