On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:36:26PM -0400, Scott F. H. Kaplan wrote:

On this point, I disagree.  Given Shansi's goal of ``doing a research
project'', choosing a stable, documented kernel may be a better idea
than a developmental kernel.  I may misinterpret the aim of this work,
but based on the description (comparing a new page replacement
algorithm against LRU), it seems unlikely that the immediate goal is
to implement ``major design changes'' that can be aborbed into a
codebase.  It seems that the intention is simply to use Linux as an
experimental platform to gather results for page replacment policy
comparisons.

This was in no small part a reaction to the backportmania and
proliferation of grossly inappropriate patches against the stable
series of the past several years. IMHO, it is a justified one.

If the goals are truly limited to using 2.4.x as a pure research
vehicle, I say there are no holds barred. But experience is the mother
of pessimism, and I'd rather keep it on the pill than see another
litter of 2.4.x-based core subsystem rewrites or "dev trees" hatched.


-- wli
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>