Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 22:11:09 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), daniel_sobral@voga.com.br, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why so many steps to build new kernel? Message-ID: <199712180511.WAA15280@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199712180317.UAA07959@usr07.primenet.com> References: <199712172234.PAA14402@mt.sri.com> <199712180317.UAA07959@usr07.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> What you have asked for is actually a hell of a lot more work than > just supplying the patches... it's basically an explanation of the > reasoning behind my FS worldview, and why I approach solving FS > problems the way I do, and exactly what makes me think something > is a problem or not. I never said it wasn't work. But, much *less* so than making a compiler work that much faster or generate measurably faster code, which takes a *LOT* nowadays. We're not comparing 'apply these patches' vs. 'explain FS design'. We're comparing 'volunteering a bunch of FreeBSD volunteers to re-write LKM, move to ELF, build pageable kernels, build faster compilers, implement VM86, change the way swap is allocated, make the kernel's locking much more fine-grained, architecture independant build system, etc...'. > I have to actually block out a large chunk of time to be able to do > this in a way that isn't half-assed. See above. For useful/robust solutions to the above, a person needs large chunks of time to keep everything straight, since at least a portion of the above problems are at least as complex in terms of keeping lots of things straight. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712180511.WAA15280>