From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261605AbVF0Jqe (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2005 05:46:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261501AbVF0Jqe (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2005 05:46:34 -0400 Received: from smtp200.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([216.136.130.125]:35670 "HELO smtp200.mail.sc5.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261649AbVF0JqY (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jun 2005 05:46:24 -0400 Message-ID: <42BFCAE7.6070708@yahoo.com.au> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 19:46:15 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050324 Debian/1.7.6-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Markus_T=F6rnqvist?= CC: Alan Cox , Hans Reiser , David Masover , Horst von Brand , Jeff Garzik , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ReiserFS List Subject: Re: reiser4 plugins References: <200506231924.j5NJOvLA031008@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> <42BB31E9.50805@slaphack.com> <1119570225.18655.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> <42BB5E1A.70903@namesys.com> <1119609680.17066.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050627091808.GC11013@nysv.org> In-Reply-To: <20050627091808.GC11013@nysv.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Markus Törnqvist wrote: > I can't find the original post I'm thinking about but > http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/5/16/68 says essentially the same thing. The scheduler is being improved for better behaviour on complex topologies like multi core + NUMA and multi level NUMA systems. If Con's work had gone in first, then conversely these improvements would have had to wait. > There's also my all-time favorite, http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/3/14/4 > What's wrong with that? The slowdown is due to the workload becoming disk bound. The reasons are still not entirely clear, but I don't think it is a recent (ie. 2.6) regression (or even a regression at all IIRC). > The lack of QA seems appalling here, and I'm sure Reiser has had > to do more of that for DARPA than most linux kernel hackers around. > And what QA would you have preferred? I think if you are resorting to bringing up all time favourite blunders when trying to justify Reiser4 being included, then that is a sign right there that something is fundamentally wrong (if not with the code, then with your line of thought0 And note my email has nothing to do with any *real* argument for or against R4. Thanks, Nick Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com