From: Jeff Garzik <email@example.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <email@example.com>,
Ingo Molnar <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
email@example.com, Richard Henderson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: unregistered changes to the user<->kernel API
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 13:52:44 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3B28F9EC.D08D3D52@mandrakesoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010614191219.A30567@athlon.random> <3B28F376.1F528D5A@mandrakesoft.com> <20010614194419.A715@athlon.random>
Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2001 at 01:25:10PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > They don't hurt but it's also a bad precedent - you don't want to add a
> > ton of CONFIG_xxx to the Linus tree for stuff outside the Linus tree.
> > disagree with this patch.
> If tux will ever be merged into mainline eventually I don't think
> there's a value in defer such bit. Of course if tux will never get
> merged then I totally agree with you.
You're missing the point -- it's a bad precedent.
How many kernel forks and patches exist out there on the net?
Many of these patches will get merged eventually. But it is a bad idea
to include bits of such into the Linus tree, when they are not used in
the Linus tree.
-Exceptions- to this policy should be carefully considered... reserving
syscall and sysctl numbers certainly makes sense. Bloating kernel_stat
with tons of unused numbers, some specific to web servers AFAICS, does
not make sense.
Tangent: Why is this webserver-specific crap in kernel_stat anyway? It
looks like there should be a separate per-cpu structure for webserver
> + unsigned int parse_static_incomplete;
> + unsigned int parse_static_redirect;
> + unsigned int parse_static_cachemiss;
> + unsigned int parse_static_nooutput;
> + unsigned int parse_static_normal;
> + unsigned int parse_dynamic_incomplete;
> + unsigned int parse_dynamic_redirect;
> + unsigned int parse_dynamic_cachemiss;
> + unsigned int parse_dynamic_nooutput;
> + unsigned int parse_dynamic_normal;
> + unsigned int complete_parsing;
> + unsigned int nr_keepalive_reqs;
> + unsigned int nr_nonkeepalive_reqs;
> +#define KEEPALIVE_HIST_SIZE 100
> + unsigned int keepalive_hist[KEEPALIVE_HIST_SIZE];
Even when merging Tux, I would hope Linus would not apply this
Jeff Garzik | Andre the Giant has a posse.
Building 1024 |
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-06-14 17:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-06-14 17:12 unregistered changes to the user<->kernel API Andrea Arcangeli
2001-06-14 17:16 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-06-14 17:21 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-06-14 17:32 ` Richard Henderson
2001-06-14 17:47 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-06-14 18:16 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-06-14 18:17 ` Richard Henderson
2001-06-14 18:10 ` Alexander Viro
2001-06-14 17:25 ` Jeff Garzik
2001-06-14 17:44 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-06-14 17:52 ` Jeff Garzik [this message]
2001-06-14 18:03 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-06-14 18:11 ` Alan Cox
2001-06-14 18:27 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-06-14 21:43 ` Albert D. Cahalan
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).