From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
akpm@osdl.org, Steven.Hand@cl.cam.ac.uk,
Christian.Limpach@cl.cam.ac.uk, Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk
Subject: Re: arch/xen is a bad idea
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:09:44 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1103155782.3585.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041215044927.GF27225@wotan.suse.de>
On Mer, 2004-12-15 at 04:49, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I think that's definitely the wrong way. Also in Linux
> the standard strategy is to first clean up and restructure/refactor
> code and then merge, not the other way round.
Must be two different Linux OS's out there then. I thought it was
- get interfaces right
- get working
- get correct
- merge
- evolve
If we did it as you describe we'd still not have a SATA layer merged for
example.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-12-16 1:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <41BF1983.mailP9C1B91GB@suse.de.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
2004-12-14 18:59 ` arch/xen is a bad idea Andi Kleen
2004-12-14 19:35 ` Antonio Vargas
2004-12-14 22:40 ` Ian Pratt
2004-12-15 4:49 ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-16 0:09 ` Alan Cox [this message]
2004-12-16 4:01 ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-16 12:54 ` Alan Cox
2004-12-16 14:09 ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-16 13:19 ` Alan Cox
2004-12-16 14:28 ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-16 20:37 ` Ian Pratt
2004-12-16 18:26 ` Andrew Morton
2004-12-16 18:57 ` Alan Cox
2004-12-16 21:00 ` Ian Pratt
2004-12-16 21:03 ` Andrew Morton
2004-12-16 21:36 ` Ian Pratt
2004-12-16 21:39 ` Rik van Riel
2004-12-17 6:04 ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-17 8:26 ` Ian Pratt
2004-12-16 22:04 ` Philip R Auld
2004-12-16 23:08 ` Rik van Riel
2004-12-17 2:07 ` Philip R Auld
2004-12-17 6:03 ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-15 11:49 ` Pavel Machek
2004-12-16 1:14 ` Ian Pratt
2004-12-16 1:26 ` Pavel Machek
2004-12-16 14:21 ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-16 22:45 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-12-16 23:09 ` Rik van Riel
2004-12-20 15:08 ` arch/xen clue? Dorn Hetzel
2004-12-20 15:15 ` Ian Pratt
2004-12-20 15:23 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2004-12-20 15:34 ` Måns Rullgård
2004-12-15 11:51 ` arch/xen is a bad idea Pavel Machek
2004-12-17 16:05 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-12-18 17:57 ` Ian Pratt
2005-02-25 11:43 ` Andrew Morton
2005-02-25 11:55 ` kernel 2.6.8-24.11-smp errors Marcel Smeets
2005-02-25 12:07 arch/xen is a bad idea Ian Pratt
2005-02-25 15:01 ` Andi Kleen
2005-02-25 22:37 ` Andrew Morton
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-02-26 20:41 Ian Pratt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1103155782.3585.29.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=Christian.Limpach@cl.cam.ac.uk \
--cc=Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk \
--cc=Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk \
--cc=Steven.Hand@cl.cam.ac.uk \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox