Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:47:22 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: kdbus: to merge or not to merge? |
| |
* David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > And the thing is, in hindsight, after such huge flamewars, years down the > > line, almost never do I see the following question asked: 'what were we > > thinking merging that crap??'. If any question arises it's usually along the > > lines of: 'what was the big fuss about?'. So I think by and large the process > > works. > > counterexamples, devfs, tux
Actually, we never merged the Tux web server upstream, and the devfs concept has kind of made a comeback via devtmpfs.
And there are examples of bits we _should_ have merged:
- GGI (General Graphics Interface)
- [ and we should probably also have merged kgdb a decade earlier to avoid wasting all that energy on flaming about it unnecessarily ;-) ]
And the thing is, I specifically talked about 'near zero cost' kernel patches that don't appreciably impact the 'core kernel'.
There's plenty of examples of features with non-trivial 'core kernel' costs that weren't merged, and rightfully IMHO:
- the STREAMS ABI - various forms of a generic kABI that were proposed - moving the kernel to C++ :-)
... and devfs arguably belongs into that category as well.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |