Re: [RFC] Tux3 for review

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Sat, 2014-06-21 at 20:32 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Saturday, June 21, 2014 12:29:01 PM PDT, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-06-19 at 14:58 -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >> We already removed 450 lines of core kernel workarounds from Tux3 with 
> an 
> >> approach that was literally cut and pasted from one of Dave's 
> >> emails. Then 
> >> Dave changed his mind. Now the Tux3 team has been assigned a research 
> >> project to improve core kernel writeback instead of simply adapting the 
> >> approach that is already proven to work well enough. That is a rather 
> >> blatant example of "perfect is the enemy of good enough". Please read 
> the 
> >> thread.
> >
> > That's a bit disingenuous: the concern has always been how page forking
> > interacted with writeback.  It's not new, it was one of the major things
> > brought up at LSF 14 months ago, so you weren't just assigned this.
> 
> [citation needed]

Really?  I was there; I remember and it's in my notes of the discussion.
However, it's also in Jon's at paragraph 6 if you need to refer to
something to refresh your memory.

However, when it was spotted isn't the issue; how we add tux3 without a
large maintenance burden on writeback is, as I carefully explained in
the rest of the email you cut.

James