Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On October 22, 2001 08:00 pm, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 03:02:49PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>> > > I have never done this comparison myself, but I was wondering how
>> > > ugly it would be if stable versions of Andrea's and Rik's VMs were
>> > > both
>> > > available in your/Linus' kernel as compile-time options. Assuming
>> > > that each provides better performance under certain conditions,
>> > > wouldn't
>> >
>> > Too ugly for words.
>>
>> Though, if it's done from the start of 2.5, it could be very possible.
>> Is there a way to make it non-ugly?
>
> No, not within the current structure of our config system. It touches the
> tree in many places break out nicely into a few defines or separable
> files. Both mm variants are under heavy development and injecting them
> with a bunch of cruft just to make it compile-time configurable would only
> add to the difficulty of maintaining a subsystem that already is very
> difficult to maintain.
>
> This is properly a patch.
>
> If you want to argue for something, argue for giving config the ability to
> apply patches, that would be lots of fun.
Actually this _is_ a workable solution. IBM has done it for decades with
its 'VM' operating system.
You get a base file, a couple of control files, and a lists of patches.
When you go to build a nucleus (translate kernel) the patches are applied
and the source assembled...
Ed Tomlinson
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 23 2001 - 21:00:33 EST