tech-kern archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Status of revivesa

On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 02:32:46PM +0000, Andrew Doran wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 09:47:13PM -0700, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote:
> > I recently update revivesa to recent current, and things are almost ready 
> > for a merge.
> I think that would be premature, because:
> - The kernel panics ~instantly when I try to test it.

I've not seen that in my testing. However Manuel has given me a 
back-trace, and I'll figure out what's up.

> - Problems identified years ago do not seem to have been fixed.

A number have.

The issue I have is that people talk about "problems" yet aren't clear 
about them. Without clearly describing them, they turn into FUD. I don't 
think that's good for any of us. Clearly explaining them will help us 
either fix them or decide to pull the plug.

Also, SA has been poorly understood and its fixes poorly propogated, so
it's not clear to me that the issues remain. When I started all of this, 
some folks told me that "X" was a problem, yet another developer told me, 
"No, I fixed that."

> - No practical benefit over 1:1 threading has been demonstrated.

Why does SA have to have a benefit over 1:1 threading? We aren't losing 
1:1 in doing this. We also aren't changing the default threading.

Andrew, you seem to have an emotional stake in SA not coming back. Why?

All we have to do is believe that we lose less than we gain by bringing SA 
back. My understanding is that core is of this opinion. They would have 
told me not to merge if they weren't.

Take care,


Attachment: pgpsCQHngi3uW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index