| |||||||||||||
The beefThe beefPosted Jun 17, 2010 16:49 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1)In reply to: The Managed Runtime Initiative by giltene Parent article: The Managed Runtime Initiative What you've brought is a dump of code, in an obscure format, in an obscure place. It's a start, but if you are serious about upstreaming this, you need to get onto linux-kernel and start discussing it with people. I would recommend picking one smallish piece to start with, clearly describe your requirements and the reasons why you chose the solution you did. Then be prepared to take a bit of grief; you really should have done this some time ago... Still, if you can show real improvements to real workloads (and it appears you can), you have a basis to start with.
(Log in to post comments)
The beef Posted Jun 18, 2010 10:11 UTC (Fri) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]
> if you are serious about upstreaming this, you need to get onto linux-kernel and start discussing it with people.
Maybe all you people can stop agreeing so much with each other.
> you really should have done this some time ago...
I still do not understand why. Wakelock trauma? This case looks very different.
The beef Posted Jun 19, 2010 21:52 UTC (Sat) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link]
wakelocks is just the most recent of a long stream of features which were developed outside the kernel. It's just a painful thing whether it's CML2 or Xen.
|
|||||||||||||