From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Creekmore Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Allow schedulers to be selectable through Kconfig Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 08:01:32 -0600 Message-ID: References: <1450385974-12732-1-git-send-email-jonathan.creekmore@gmail.com> <1450435531.4053.196.camel@citrix.com> <567448E9.2030702@cardoe.com> <1452091541.21055.58.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1aHB8F-0002Wn-R1 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:01:39 +0000 Received: by mail-qk0-f174.google.com with SMTP id h11so37463122qke.1 for ; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 06:01:35 -0800 (PST) In-reply-to: <1452091541.21055.58.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: Keir Fraser , Jonathan Creekmore , Doug Goldstein , Tim Deegan , Jan Beulich , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Ian Jackson List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Ian Campbell writes: > I don't see this as contrary to your stated goals (e.g. ripping out all the > other schedulers), but I consider you to be within the expert camp for > wanting to do so (and having the chops to handle whatever pieces you find > yourselves with). I have no objections at all to allowing experts such as > yourselves to configure things and I applaud you for doing this in an > upstream way (it is the right thing to do). > > My concern is that while you rightly consider yourselves expert enough and > are building something for a specific (and AIUI targeted) use case many > normal users tend to think that if they are expert enough to find and flip > the switch then they are expert enough to deal with the consequences, when > they are not and/or they do not have the specific use case which the switch > was added to support i.e. they want common or garden Xen and we want that > to mean the same for everyone. > > It's those people (including general purpose distro maintainers) who I > think need to be strongly discouraged from messing with these options > because there will be a strong gravity towards them doing so. So, if I add a patch in a v3 of this series that introduces a CONFIG_EXPERT option and hides all of the scheduler options behind that, would that be acceptible? That is a proposal that was mentioned on this thread before. Is there any specific language that you would like to have around the CONFIG_EXPERT option?