Am Dienstag, den 12.08.2008, 20:35 +0200 schrieb Herbert Poetzl: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:00:16AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: > > Remigiusz Modrzejewski wrote: > > > But in the end, it would invariably mean a lot of work, swinging patches back > > > and forth and convincing people that you're right about this code. And it > > > would probably end up being accepted in less than 100%. Then, Herbert > > > explicitly stated that maintaining 80% in-tree and 20% out-tree is exactly > > > the thing he's trying to avoid... > > > > > > Anyways, you're welcome to try. And it would be a great thing if you > > > succeeded. > > > > 80% in-tree and 20% out-tree is much better than 100% out tree. I'd second this. With the growing interest in virtualization some project will sooner or later start pushing into the kernel tree. If it's not vserver it's openvz or something else. Anything that makes it into the main tree will probably make it much more difficult for the other projects to survive. People will just use what is 'in there' without patching. I myself am a happy vserver user for years, but with say openvz built into the kernel tree, i don't think i'd hesitate very long to switch. And i'm for sure not the only one. > let me just give an example here, and you might want to > check that with google and friends ... [...] > the bottom line is: this defect (not a feature) required more > than 5 years and the efford from several people, including > the IBM folks to get 'worked around' because it is still not > 'fixed' :) It's probably a pain to get things into mainline. I wish i could help, but i'm far from capable of doing kernel development / submitting patches. I really appreciate all your efforts and i can understand that you got too frustrated to try pushing things into the kernel. But I don't think that the vserver project will survive in the long term once someone else starts pushing his (maybe not so good) stuff into the kernel. Tom