From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 17 May 2002 22:31:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 17 May 2002 22:31:34 -0400 Received: from [195.223.140.120] ([195.223.140.120]:40018 "EHLO penguin.e-mind.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 17 May 2002 22:31:33 -0400 Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 04:30:04 +0200 From: Andrea Arcangeli To: Keith Owens Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel Message-ID: <20020518023004.GF29509@dualathlon.random> In-Reply-To: <20020518011410.GD29509@dualathlon.random> <14957.1021688031@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i X-GnuPG-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.gnupg.asc X-PGP-Key-URL: http://e-mind.com/~andrea/aa.asc Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 12:13:51PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote: > On Sat, 18 May 2002 03:14:10 +0200, > Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > > >you're right if we need a make clean it's because the buildsystem is > >broken. However one thing that happens all the time to me, is that I > >change an header like mm.h or sched.h and ~everything needs to be > >rebuilt then. > > That is an orthogonal problem to kbuild 2.5. The spaghetti that is the of course. > include tree needs to be cleaned up, other people are working on that. > > >Now the only regression I can > >see is that kbuild was quite slower in compiling the kernel from scrach > >(so I suspect that for me after editing mm.h it would take more time > >with kbuild2.5 to reach the vmlinux generation than it took with the old > >buildsystem after the make clean) Is that the case, or did you improved > >the performance of kbuild recently? > > Since release 2.0 [1], kbuild 2.5 has been faster as well as more Ok. > accurate than the old build system. A couple of people have complained > that some restricted operations are slower in kbuild 2.5 [2] but > overall it is faster, more accurate and provides more facilities, > especially for people building multiple kernels. > > [1] http://www.lib.uaa.alaska.edu/linux-kernel/archive/2002-Week-13/0771.html > [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102064198628442&w=2 Thanks for the two pointers. Andrea