On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 08:37:58AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:46:39AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > - the whole 'consistency model' talk both projects employ > > reminds me of how we grew 'security modules': where > > people running various mediocre projects would in the > > end not seek to create a superior upstream project, but > > would seek the 'consensus' in the form of cross-acking > > each others' patches as long as their own code got > > upstream as well ... > > That's just not the case. The consistency models were used to describe > the features and the pros and cons of the different approaches. > > The RFC is not a compromise to get "cross-acks". IMO it's an > improvement on both kpatch and kGraft. See the RFC cover letter [1] and > the original consistency model discussion [2] for more details.
BTW, I proposed that with my RFC we only need a _single_ consistency model. Yes, there have been some suggestions that we should support multiple consistency models, but I haven't heard any good reasons that would justify the added complexity. -- Josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
