From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1758607AbXGaMBR@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1758607AbXGaMBR (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:01:17 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751795AbXGaMBF
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:01:05 -0400
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:55865 "HELO mail.gmx.net"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP
	id S1751243AbXGaMBD (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:01:03 -0400
X-Authenticated: #14349625
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+t/Oo1QMCtkDbnknsWuU3WngLdV4n2NGyCKRQPcu
	VcwTp+ZiaMLgqa
Subject: Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org>
Cc: Carlo Florendo <subscribermail@gmail.com>,
       Martin Steigerwald <Martin@lichtvoll.de>, ck@vds.kolivas.org,
       Satyam Sharma <satyam@infradead.org>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@computergmbh.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20070731095723.GH32582@gnuppy.monkey.org>
References: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0707221351030.3607@woody.linux-foundation.org>
	 <200707292023.36555.Martin@lichtvoll.de>
	 <alpine.LFD.0.999.0707300008230.30928@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in>
	 <200707292118.45484.Martin@lichtvoll.de> <46AE8D25.20602@gmail.com>
	 <20070731095723.GH32582@gnuppy.monkey.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:00:59 +0200
Message-Id: <1185883259.7445.8.camel@Homer.simpson.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.2 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 02:57 -0700, Bill Huey wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 09:15:17AM +0800, Carlo Florendo wrote:
> >
> > 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.

Chuckle.  You are really desperate for entertainment.

	-Mike