Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Feb 2010 08:23:57 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: linux-next requirements |
| |
* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:
> > In fact those rare ways of building and booting the kernel i mentioned are > > probably used _more_ than half of the architectures that linux-next > > build-tests ... > > I don't know and you don't know either. That's just pure speculation and > therefore meaningless.
We know various arch (and hardware) usage stats, such as:
http://smolt.fedoraproject.org/static/stats/stats.html
Today's stats, done amongst users who are willing to opt in to the Smolt daemon:
x86: 99.7% powerpc: 0.3%
x86 used to be 99.5 a year ago, so the world has become even more x86-centric.
There's also the kerneloops.org client, which shows in excess of 95% x86 usage as well. You can also grep the linux-kernel folder for arch signatures, etc.
And yes, there are millions of ARM (and MIPS) CPUs running Linux as well. (They are only as present as present their developers are: the users almost never show up on linux-kernel.)
Plus, a kernel subsystem maintainer like me who does lots of kernel infrastructure work can have a pretty good gut feeling about which architectures are actively helping out Linux, and which are just hanging on to the bandwagon.
So i respectfully disagree with your 'pure speculation' bit. Yes, it's somewhat of a guessing game, as so many things in life - but the trend is very clear.
Ingo
| |