From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262150AbVGVTyU (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:54:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262151AbVGVTyU (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:54:20 -0400 Received: from omx3-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.20]:47852 "EHLO omx3.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262150AbVGVTyO (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:54:14 -0400 Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:53:35 -0700 From: Paul Jackson To: Shailabh Nagar Cc: mbligh@mbligh.org, matthltc@us.ibm.com, akpm@osdl.org, hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gh@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: 2.6.13-rc3-mm1 (ckrm) Message-Id: <20050722125335.10b3ee0b.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <42E070F9.6010009@watson.ibm.com> References: <20050715013653.36006990.akpm@osdl.org> <20050715150034.GA6192@infradead.org> <20050715131610.25c25c15.akpm@osdl.org> <20050717082000.349b391f.pj@sgi.com> <1121985448.5242.90.camel@stark> <20050721163227.661a5169.pj@sgi.com> <42E03DD2.6020308@mbligh.org> <20050721204631.1fb4d9a5.pj@sgi.com> <42E070F9.6010009@watson.ibm.com> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.0.0beta5 (GTK+ 2.6.4; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Shailabh wrote: > So if the current CPU controller > implementation is considered too intrusive/unacceptable, it can be > reworked or (and we certainly hope not) even rejected in perpetuity. It is certainly reasonable that you would hope such. But this hypothetical possibility concerns me a little. Where would that leave CKRM, if it was in the mainline kernel, but there was no CPU controller in the mainline kernel? Wouldn't that be a rather serious problem for many users of CKRM if they wanted to work on mainline kernels? -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401