7 Jan
2005
7 Jan
'05
4:45 p.m.
On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 12:02 -0800, Matt Mackall wrote:
The trouble with introducing something into the kernel
is that once
done, it can't be undone. So you're absolutely going to meet
resistance to anything that can be a) done sufficiently in userspace
or b) can reasonably be done in a more generic manner so as to meet
the needs of a wider future audience. The onus is on the submitter to
meet these requirements because we can't easily kick out a broken API
after we accept it.
For a big subsystem that exposes an API, you would be right. But this
is a *really* simple problem, all you need is a way to tell it who gets
RT privileges, which means uid or gid. So any future solution will be
orthogonal to this one, and when users upgrade even a not very smart
Perl script will be able to migrate the configuration. How many
different ways are there to say "these are the non-root users who have
realtime prvileges", anyway?
Unless, of course, the solution that's eventually merged is *really*
overcomplicated by comparison, in which case users will (rightly) reject
it, and the system will have worked.
Lee