Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Dec 1999 12:13:43 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Bloat? (khttpd) |
| |
Alexander Viro wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > Martin Dalecki wrote: > > > > > > > > Performance, and *modularity*. khttpd doesn't affect anything else in > > > > the kernel, and so is a rather harmless optional feature. > > > > > > There where times where for example /proc was an option too... > > > > > > > /proc was never modular. It touches *everything*, which makes it > > No, now it doesn't. It used to, and that made it a whole friggin' pain in > ass whenever we did anything near VFS. Right now _nothing_ outside of > fs/proc should care about procfs internals. There are 4 or 5 places that > still do and IMO each of such cases is a bug.
True for the filesystem. Not true for the data sources!!
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |