From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: considering kevent - the kernel development process Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:24:07 +0300 Message-ID: <20070314132405.GA14500@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <45F6F590.8030909@densedata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Miller , Ulrich Drepper , Andrew Morton , netdev , Zach Brown , Christoph Hellwig , Chase Venters , Jeff Garzik , Jamal Hadi Salim , Ingo Molnar , Pavel Machek , Theodore Tso , Arjan van de Ven , Linus Torvalds To: Johann Borck Return-path: Received: from relay.2ka.mipt.ru ([194.85.82.65]:58895 "EHLO 2ka.mipt.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161268AbXCNN0t (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:26:49 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45F6F590.8030909@densedata.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 08:03:44PM +0100, Johann Borck (johann.borck@densedata.com) wrote: > So my questions are: > > What in general is wrong with kevent? > > What, in detail is wrong with kevent / its proposed interface? > > What features are missing? > > What are the (real) reasons for the way it is discussed? Fsck it, Johann :) It is a trend (a politics) to hide head into the sand and feel like nothing happend - open source does not have mechanisms to force people to do something (like comment on foreign ideas/implementations), so people make a look like problem does not exist and solve it using own way. There will be tons of other interesting stuff, stay tuned :) -- Evgeniy Polyakov