From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262921AbUB0S11 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:27:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263089AbUB0S11 (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:27:27 -0500 Received: from mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net ([151.164.30.28]:24505 "EHLO mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262921AbUB0S1V (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:27:21 -0500 Message-ID: <403F8BF7.3040202@matchmail.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:27:03 -0800 From: Mike Fedyk User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040209) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grigor Gatchev CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: A Layered Kernel: Proposal References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Grigor Gatchev wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Mike Fedyk wrote: >>Useful discussion would be asking for implementation suggestions to get >>to your goal. Oh wait, I think there are already some of those in this >>thread. > > > Wait, wait a bit :-) I am still trying to see if that attractively looking > model is really good. After (rather, _if_) it is proven good, I would be > asking for implementation suggestions. But let's see first if it is worth > implementing. OK, you need to state that in simple terms at the very begining of your proposal in the future. Otherwise many people won't understand you're asking for design help, and are just asking others to do what you want. Also, fill in more details. Take all of the ideas against your proposal in this thread, and write how they can be overcome. You have to give enough detail so it will not be seen as a dismissal of said problem, and enough flexability for a design document. Frankly, it might be better if you wrote an RFC with implementation details. HTH, Mike