cvs commit: src/sys/geom/eli g_eli.c

[Scott Long]

Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 04:36:36PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
>> On Monday 29 January 2007 15:19, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
>>> I fully agree that there should be a clean KPI for this. What you
>>> proposed if fine. Because of lack of such KPI geli has to handle HTT
>>> CPUs which are turned off by default in releases also by abusing
>>> scheduler internals. KPI you proposed would allow me to remove those
>>> hacks. And I'm really all for it.
>>>
>>> What you and Scott are missing is that when I implement a GEOM class,
>>> I'm using what is available to do my work. I'm not going to educate
>>> myself how schedulers work, implement nice and clean KPI to use it in
>>> my class. I'm not saying it wouldn't be great to be able to do so, but I
>>> don't have time for everything, unfortunately, and you guys should
>>> understand that very well.
>> Something you seem to be missing though is that in general it's nice to not 
>> just endulge in an endless series of hacks in your specific area of the 
>> system.  IWBN to at some point devote some time to help fix more general 
>> problems that will benefit the system as a whole rather than adding hacks 
>> that just benefit yourself and require someone else to clean up when they 
>> eventually add the more-architected solution.  We are all very busy, but if 
>> everyone just did hacks and never put any effort into improving the general 
>> infrastructure, we'd have a royal mess.
> 
> To improve the infrastructure, one should feel strong about areas he
> want to improve. I do infrastructual work in areas, where I think I've a
> clue. Asking me to work on schedulers or SMP architecture where I don't
> feel competent enough is just unfair, John. The time I need to spend on
> educating myself in those areas will be much longer than I can afford.
> So my choice is leave broken code and ignore the users, or fix it using
> tools available now and fix it better when the infrastructure is ready
> or I've time to work on the infrastructure in this area.
> If someone competent will provide infrastructural improvements I can
> use, I'd love to use it. I try hard not to leave my code behind.
> 
> Can we move on now?
> 

You're quite naive if you think that people like John and myself work on 
infrastructure for any other reason than that it needs to be done.  You 
may not feel that it's your job to do good architecture, but whatever 
you propose to put into FreeBSD is still subject to peer review.  Keep
this in mind.

Scott