From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755284AbZHKPSJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:18:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755247AbZHKPSH (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:18:07 -0400 Received: from mailhost5.gawab.com ([66.220.20.5]:42106 "HELO info14.gawab.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755246AbZHKPSD (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:18:03 -0400 X-Trusted: Whitelisted From: Al Boldi To: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH] Driver Core: devtmpfs - kernel-maintained tmpfs-based /dev Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:18:16 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: Chris Friesen , Andi Kleen , Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Kay Sievers , Jan Blunck , gregkh@suse.de, Harald Hoyer , Scott James Remnant References: <20090805171513.GA10443@kroah.com> <200908110648.26191.a1426z@gawab.com> <20090811040431.GA1178@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20090811040431.GA1178@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200908111818.16399.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 06:48:26AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > > Linux used to be lean and mean which made it fun to work with, and which > > made the switch from the competition easy. Nowadays I see a lot of bloat > > going into the kernel which may indicate that Linux is starting to run > > out of steam. > > That doesn't seem to make sense, if more development is happening, and > our number of contributors, different companies, and rate of change is > increasing, how are we "running out of steam"? Running out of "quality steam". Quantity can never replace Quality. > What specific development number is proof of us slowing down? I see > nothing but the exact, and extreme, opposite thing happening. The increasing number of regressions are probably cause for concern. > > devtmpfs seems bloaty due to the hotplug dependency. > > Would you use it if we fix it to remove this dependancy? Yes, if it also compares to static /dev in terms of speed. > So what really is your objection here? That we did not let devtmpfs > work within a CONFIG_HOTPLUG=n type system? Yes. > Or that devtmpfs works with > the existing CONFIG_HOTPLUG=y systems (i.e. 99% of the world)? And that should stay an option. Thanks! -- Al