Re: unregistered changes to the user<->kernel API

Jeff Garzik
2001-06-14T17:53:47Z

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
statistics.

> + 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
particular change.

Jeff

--
Jeff Garzik | Andre the Giant has a posse.
Building 1024 |
MandrakeSoft |