On Thursday 04 October 2007 3:17:03 pm Randy Dunlap wrote:... I started this thread by posting an idea I had for shrinking the kernel by allowing more code to be configured out. The API change was exactly one new parameter, with a direct 1->1 mapping from the old API to the new one, which was trivial to convert and which the compiler would catch if you missed one. The result of the discussion is a patch adding 1600 lines to the kernel, without removing anything. Last I checked, the current prink() worked just fine. Why is this _not_ the dreaded "infrastructure in search of a use"? What exactly can we _not_ do with the current code? What does this allow us to remove and simplify? I'm confused about what people are trying to accomplish here... Rob -- "One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code." - Ken Thompson. -
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Mike Travis | [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses |
| Dave Jones | agp / cpufreq. |
| Willy Tarreau | Re: [PATCH] tcp: splice as many packets as possible at once |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 14/37] dccp: Tidy up setsockopt calls |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
git: | |
