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, 9 May 2002 16:43:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 9 May 2002 16:43:10 -0400 Received: from [195.63.194.11] ([195.63.194.11]:17413 "EHLO mail.stock-world.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 9 May 2002 16:43:09 -0400 Message-ID: <3CDAD08D.2090102@evision-ventures.com> Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 21:39:57 +0200 From: Martin Dalecki User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; pl-PL; rv:1.0rc1) Gecko/20020419 X-Accept-Language: en-us, pl MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "David S. Miller" CC: akpm@zip.com.au, indigoid@higherplane.net, dank@kegel.com, khttpd-users@alt.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: khttpd rotten? In-Reply-To: <20020509114009.GD3855@higherplane.net> <20020509.042938.78984470.davem@redhat.com> <3CDACE73.6692A31E@zip.com.au> <20020509.123540.85382726.davem@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Uz.ytkownik David S. Miller napisa?: > From: Andrew Morton > Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 12:30:59 -0700 > > The concern with moving one (major) application into the > kernel is that this will weaken the testing/motivation to get > zerocopy, aio and sophisticated notifications working well > for userspace. > > Actually, to the contrary, TUX was in fact an impetus for the > userlevel zerocopy and AIO bits :-) > > I personally don't see anything wrong with something like the > TUX engine being in there. At the same time I want to reiterate what > Ingo said which is what we can do in userspace catches up to what > TUX can do then we pull it out and move on to the next thing :-) It's far easiet to add then to remove. Trust me ;-). I vote against both of them: tux and khttpd are should have no place in the kernel of a General Pupose OS kernel.