Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: KBuild 2.5 Impressions | Date | Fri, 31 May 2002 02:29:16 +0200 |
| |
On Friday 31 May 2002 02:09, David Lang wrote: > On Fri, 31 May 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > don't forget that the kbuild2.5 patch was a lot smaller before keith was > told to "go away and don't bother anyone until the speed problem is fixed" > a large part of the fix was to use the mmapped db stuff that Larry McVoy > made available instead of useing the standard db libraries on the system.
I haven't seen complaints about the size of the patch, there are plenty of patches of similar size. I've only seen the request to break it up, and as I showed, it's not that hard, so...
Though I can certainly see why somebody who is weary from a long trip could react badly to the suggestion that they should go take a further hike around the block.
> one possible way to make this more 'incramental' would be to make a > version of kbuild2.5 that used the standard db stuff and is 200% slower > then the existing kbuild and then after it's accepted put in the patch to > speed it up to where it's 17% faster (IIRC the numbers Daniel posted > earlier today) by converting the db that's used. Somehow I doubt that > crippling the speed mearly to make it 'incramental' would make many people > happy.
The way I see it, all that's required with respect to the db is to give it its own patch. Out of regard to Larry, who contributed it, even make it a BitKeeper patch ;-)
-- Daniel - 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/
| |