Re: Low Latency Patch

[Robert Dinse]

On Sat, 1 Jul 2000, Khimenko Victor wrote:
> 
> Ah. So you spotted problem yourself and STILL asking question below ??? Huh.
> 
> >      Why can't this be made into a configuration option?
> 
> Argh. Have you READ any Linus's letter on subject ? "It's all about
> maintability, stupid". If you think tens (if not hundreds) ifdef's
> spread all over kernel three is easier to maintain then external patch
> then think again. Patch is not accepted NOT since goal is wrong. It's
> completely other story: this patch makes maintaining of kernel sources
> nightmare. Configuration option can not help maintainers. Not at all.

     You know it should be possible to express disagreement without having
to resort to name calling.

     The low latency patch, which really significantly improves not only the
usability of the kernel for real-time audio/video applications but also
improves the general feel and functionality in a heavily loaded environment,
and something that significantly affects security as the Solar Design patches
do, are both things that significantly increase the functionality of the kernel
relative to the degree that they detract from maintainability. 

     Certainly both of these things are of more widespread interest than say,
packet radio hacks, and probably several dozen other features that are included
in the kernel configuration.

     Personally, I would be thrilled if Linux were just stable on Sparc-32 SMP
platforms but that's another issue.