Hi Roman. On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 02:35:35PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:I have read the announcement from Ingo and after reading it I concluded that it was good to see that Ingo had taken in consideration the feedback from you and improved the schduler based on this. And when I read that he removed a lot of stuff I smiled. This reminded me of countless monkey aka code review sessions where I repeatedly do like my childred and asks why so many times that the author realize that something is not needed or no longer used. The above were my impression after reading the announcement with respect to your influence and that goes far beyond "two cleanups". I bet many others read it roughly like I did. And no - I did not go back and re-read it. So do not answering by quoting the announcement or stuff like this. Because that will NOT change what my first impression was. So keep up the review - we get a better scheduler this way. Sam -
| Jeff Garzik | [PATCH 1/9] irq-remove: core |
| Jamie Lokier | Re: POHMELFS high performance network filesystem. Transactions, failover, performa... |
| Dave Young | Re: 2.6.24-rc3-mm1 |
| Willy Tarreau | Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7? |
git: | |
| Dan Miner | Compilation speeds (was Re: No patchlevel 3.} |
| Ian Jackson | RFD: comp.os.linux split |
| X X | X11 GIf viewer somewhere? |
| root | Broken pipe when using reboot/halt, etc. |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
