Re: BFS v0.311 CPU scheduler for 2.6.32

[Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>]

Hi Con,

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 01:00:54PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > If you are not doing your unpaid kernel work for yourself and for people
> > who recognize/use it then upstream maintainers not liking your changes
> > should really be the least of your worries..
> > 
> 
> Wait, this does not make sense. There's a cyclical flaw in this reasoning. If 
> I cared about their acknowledgment, I would make it mainline mergeable and 
> argue a case for it, which I do not want to do. 
> 
> I'm happy to make reasonable changes to the code consistent with what people 
> who use it want, but what exactly is the point of making it mainline mergeable 
> if it will not be merged?

Many people build their own kernels by :
  1) applying a lot of patches on them (stable + features)
  2) using machine-specific configs

You will get far more testers if they can use the same kernel and
just play with their config files than if they have to patch/unpatch
depending on what they need to have.

I personally would love to be able to add BFS into my kernels for
testing purposes, comparison, and possibly to propose enhancements
and fixes. But I don't want to *replace* mainline code.

Also, I like to have the same kernel sources used on my desktop,
notebook, eeepc, and my bootable USB key. It is a lot easier to
upgrade and a lot easier to spot bugs before they strike in sensible
environments.

Regards,
Willy