lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: State of the new config & build system
    From
    Date
    On Fri, 2001-12-28 at 22:59, Nicholas Knight wrote:

    <snip>

    > > What Mr. Fishtank seems to overlook is that kbuild 2.5 is far more
    > > flexible and accurate than 2.4, including features that lots of
    > > people want, like separate source and object trees. Now that the
    > > overall kbuild design is correct, the core code can be rewritten for
    > > speed. And that will be done a couple of weeks after kbuild 2.5 goes
    > > into the kernel, then I expect kbuild 2.5 to be faster than kbuild
    > > 2.4 even on full builds.
    > >
    >
    > What, exactly, is the point of merging something that nobody is going
    > to use unless they want to test it, in which case they can grab a patch
    > from somewhere?

    You don't seem to be reading Keith's message.

    The point of merging is that Keith needs time to fix the
    performance problem. Plus, additional testing would probably
    be helpful.

    > It's half the speed of the current system. The current system works, no
    > matter how horrible its internals can be. That makes the NEW system
    > BROKEN.

    No, it's known to be slow in some circumstances.

    > If it's KNOWN to be BROKEN prior to merge then it shouldn't
    > even be in a 2.5.*-pre#.

    Uh, many drivers cannot be built in the current 2.5 tree.
    Temporary brokenness is acceptable in the development tree.
    It is meant to be _unstable_. I recall periods when the
    2.3 kernel was corrupting data for many users. This period
    lasted about a week, IIRC. The kbuild 2.5 system will slow
    people down, but not hose their development system installations.
    I personally think two weeks of working at a slower pace is
    an acceptable trade-off for the longterm benefits that Keith
    has mentioned. It seems odd that several people in this
    discussion seem to have ignored the repeated statements that
    Keith will have little time for dealing with the performance
    rewrite until the multiple kernel tree synchronization
    time sink goes away. Telling Keith that he needs to go on
    spinning his wheels while he cannot find time to deal with
    the problem you are asking him to fix seems sort of unhelpful.
    Perhaps you'd be willing to assist him in the rewrite?

    Miles

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:14    [W:0.025 / U:1.688 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site