Re: [RFC][PATCH] SCHED_EDF scheduling class

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 09/23/2009 06:08 PM, Daniel Walker wrote:
>
>> Not true, you want to address the major issues first.  What's the point
>> of fixing whitespace if the whole approach is rejected? if it has to
>> undergo a rewrite? (not an opinion on EDF btw, just as an example)
>>      
> I'm not sure why your fixated on whitespace , but thinking about it more
> I don't think it matters .. If you fix whitespace or major issues first,
> it doesn't matter .. All the issues have to eventually get fixed .. Not
> to mentioned that LKML is not something you could remotely control in
> that way.
>    

A technical issue is that if you rewrite the code the whitespace fix 
becomes irrelevant.  But more important is that it's a distraction when 
people are thinking about requirements and design.

>>> In this case the author is not totally aware of how to submit this
>>> code.. I don't think it's at all inappropriate to comment on that. His
>>> next submission will likely be much cleaner and nicer. It may even speed
>>> up the inclusion process since he'll be more easily able to submit the
>>> code (with practice and comments from us).
>>>
>>>        
>> Give people some credit.
>>      
> What do you mean?
>
>    

If he's able to write a scheduling class, he'll pick up the coding style 
when it becomes relevant.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function