On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:15:17AM +0800, Carlo Florendo wrote:
quoted text
> And I think you are digressing from the main issue, which is the empirical 
> comparison of SD vs. CFS and to determine which is best.   The root of all 
> the scheduler fuss was the emotional reaction of SD's author on why his 
> scheduler began to be compared with CFS.

Legitimate emotional reaction for being locked out of the development
process. There's a very human aspect to this, yes, a negative human
aspect that pervade Linux kernel development and is overly defensive and
protective of new ideas.

quoted text
> We obviously all saw how the particular authors tried to address the 
> issues.  Ingo tried to address all concerns while Con simply ranted about 
> his scheduler being better.  If this is what you think about being a bit 
> more human, then I think that this has no place in the lkml.

That's highly inaccurate and rather disrespect of Con's experience.
There as a policy decision made with SD that one person basically didn't
like, this person whined like a baby for the a formula bottle and didn't
understand how to use "nice" to control this inherent behavior of this
scheduler.

bill

-
unsubscribe notice
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/