Hi folks, <big_snip> Just a few naive thoughts: a) What about reducing code size ? Some parts, IMHO, doen't necessarily need to be in the kernel, eg. certain filesystems. Less code, less patches to review, less chance of kernel bugs. Of course this might also cause other impacts (eg. performance), so those decisions require great care. b) Mutli-tier trees / patchlines IMHO, a major problem are conflicting patches (eg. a core change causes some driver to break). In measurement instrumentation (eg. timesync), there's typically one primary reference point (eg. atomic clock) as tier-0, where (a limited set of) tier-1's are synchronized against, tier-2 syncs against tier-1 and so on. So for the linux kernel, we perhaps could have something like: * tier-0: core * tier-1: arch * tier-2: hw drivers * tier-3: sw drivers * tier-4: userland interfaces If a change from a lower tier wants to it's upper tier, it first MUST fit it's current mainline and carefully checked. Of course this introduces longer times for an individual change to go to into release (since it has to pass several tiers), but IMHO the chance of new bugs in release should be reduced this way. Of course there might be chances in a lower tier, which obviously won't affect several intermediate tiers. Those could skip some tiers. For example, I'm currently working on an /proc interface for changing process privileges. In my model, this had to be settled in #4, but shouldn't touch drivers (#2,#3), but maybe arch (#1). So these changes could be kicked directly to #2. What do you think about this ? cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- --
| Andi Kleen | [PATCH] [16/22] x86: Move swsusp __pa() dependent code to arch portion |
| Nick Piggin | [patch 5/6] mm: merge nopfn into fault |
| Chuck Ebbert | Wanted: simple, safe x86 stack overflow detection |
| Balbir Singh | Re: 2.6.23-rc7-mm1 - 'touch' command causes Oops. |
git: | |
| Junio C Hamano | Re: [PATCH resend] make "git push" update origin and mirrors, "git push --mirror" ... |
| David Kastrup | Re: [OT] Re: C++ *for Git* |
| Bryan Donlan | [PATCH 0/8] Fix git's test suite to pass when the path contains spaces |
| Davide Libenzi | Re: First cut at git port to Cygwin |
| Khalid Schofield | Configuring sendmail openbsd 4.2 |
| Richard Stallman | Real men don't attack straw men |
| Jake Conk | Setting up ccd RAID 1 Howto OpenBSD 4.1 |
| Thilo Pfennig | OpenBSD project goals |
| Jim Winstead Jr. | Re: Root Disk/Book Disk Compatibility |
| Howard Wei-Hao Pan | [Q] Does Linux work with PCMCIA devices? |
| Curtis Yarvin | Re: Problem with UNCOMPRESS |
| Linus Benedict Torvalds | Re: trouble booting 0.11 (continued) |
