From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 30 May 2002 20:30:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 30 May 2002 20:30:40 -0400 Received: from dsl-213-023-038-015.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.38.15]:5854 "EHLO starship") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 30 May 2002 20:30:40 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: David Lang Subject: Re: KBuild 2.5 Impressions Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 02:29:16 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: Ion Badulescu , Keith Owens , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 31 May 2002 02:09, David Lang wrote: > On Fri, 31 May 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote: > don't forget that the kbuild2.5 patch was a lot smaller before keith was > told to "go away and don't bother anyone until the speed problem is fixed" > a large part of the fix was to use the mmapped db stuff that Larry McVoy > made available instead of useing the standard db libraries on the system. I haven't seen complaints about the size of the patch, there are plenty of patches of similar size. I've only seen the request to break it up, and as I showed, it's not that hard, so... Though I can certainly see why somebody who is weary from a long trip could react badly to the suggestion that they should go take a further hike around the block. > one possible way to make this more 'incramental' would be to make a > version of kbuild2.5 that used the standard db stuff and is 200% slower > then the existing kbuild and then after it's accepted put in the patch to > speed it up to where it's 17% faster (IIRC the numbers Daniel posted > earlier today) by converting the db that's used. Somehow I doubt that > crippling the speed mearly to make it 'incramental' would make many people > happy. The way I see it, all that's required with respect to the db is to give it its own patch. Out of regard to Larry, who contributed it, even make it a BitKeeper patch ;-) -- Daniel