>Felix von Leitner <leitner@math.fu-berlin.de>:
>: Thus spake Larry McVoy (lm@bitmover.com):
>: > Furthermore, your suggested "fix" is completely specific to your
>: > application with short RT run queues. What happens if you have 10
>: > RT processes? Won't they have exactly the same "problem" that you
>: > are currently "fixing" by moving your processes off the run queue
>: > onto another queue? If that's the case, how can you possibly call
>: > it a RT queue - it only helps you. Shouldn't it really be called
the
>: > Short_RT_Process_Queue_For_Mr_Goochs_Possible_Problem?
>:
>: I don't understand why you are flaming him so badly.
>Because he is trying to change the kernel in a way that is obviously
>application specific, doesn't help the general case, and wasn't been
>shown to be necessary.
Firstly, I feel that you and your partner in ill manners
yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu are being way too hard on this guy. It's one
thing if he's mistaken and you're trying to help him see his error - but
I don't see that. Instead I see a pair of vicious flamers attacking
someone with an idea on how to improve the kernel, apparently because
his idea somehow tresspasses on their virtual turf.
Mr Goochs does indeed appear to be guilty of not providing benchmarks
to back up his claims. He has provided a reasonable thought experiment,
let him prove it. By the same token, those who wish to bandy about
phrases like "obviously" would be better served by instead providing
benchmarks **disproving** the postulation.
He thinks it provides benefit, let him prove it. You and your fellow
flamer feel it does not, then disprove it.
Results speak far louder than retoric, especially ad hominum retoric
such as has been posted today.
You both should know better.
DG
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/