Re: Bloat? (khttpd)

H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
Thu, 23 Dec 1999 12:13:43 -0800

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/