[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Evolution of kernel size
On 11/11/11 11:51, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:33:33PM +0900, Jérôme Pinot wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I took some time to make a graph of the evolution of the size of the
> > linux kernel tar.bz2 since version 1.0 till 3.1 (297 releases).
> > It doesn't count the stable branches (2.6.x.y).
> The question really is what are you trying to show with the graph, and
> what do you plan to use the graph for? If it is estimating the size
> of disk space that you'll need at some point in the future, that's
> fine. If it's for entertainment value, that's fine too.

That's exactly the point :-)

> But if it's to try to make some claims about (for example) kernel
> complexity, you'd do better to measure the size of various specific
> subsystems, such as mm, core kernel, a specific file system, etc. And
> even then, the statistics can be misleading since sometimes
> refactoring to reduce complexity or removing unneeded abstraction
> layers can end up reducing the size of the subsystem, but leave it in
> a more maintainable state.

Measuring code complexity or work/cost of the source code was out of my

Jérôme Pinot
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: 2011-11-12 14:07    [W:0.033 / U:3.900 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site