[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: KBuild 2.5 Impressions
    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 ;-)

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:2.223 / U:0.424 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site