kbuild 2.5 is ready for inclusion in the 2.5 kernel
Quoted 6 lines · Richard Gooch
As Keith says, the new code is faster and more robust than the old code. Given that tracking kernel drift is a significant load on him, it makes sense to incorporate the new code now. Once it's in, let people get used to it and then we can look at optimising it, if need be. Delaying introduction into the kernel tree because it's not 100% optimised is wasteful.
Keith also says:
Quoted 5 lines
I am temporarily omitting [modversions] which is (a) currently broken
(b) is not being used in development kernels and (c) cannot be fixed without a radical redesign. Modversions is not needed right now and will be added later. Everything I have done in kbuild 2.5 is needed now
[Caveat: I'm not much of a kernel hacker.]
My only concern with kbuild 2.5 was the lack of modversions, but since Richard is promising to add them in before the distros need them, I would have no qualms about kbuild 2.5 totally replacing the old build system for the next 2.5 kernel. I'm sick and tired of 'make dep'.
What does Alan Cox think?
- Dan
Quoted 11 lines · Dan Kegel
Keith also says:
Quoted 5 lines
I am temporarily omitting [modversions] which is (a) currently broken
(b) is not being used in development kernels and (c) cannot be fixed without a radical redesign. Modversions is not needed right now and will be added later. Everything I have done in kbuild 2.5 is needed now[Caveat: I'm not much of a kernel hacker.]
My only concern with kbuild 2.5 was the lack of modversions, but since Richard is promising to add them in before the distros need them,
You misquoted. Richard is not promising to add modversions, I am. I maintain both kbuild and modutils, the two halves of the modversion problem.
Quoted 10 lines · Keith Owens
Quoted 7 lines · Dan Kegel
Keith also says:
Quoted 5 lines
I am temporarily omitting [modversions] which is (a) currently broken
(b) is not being used in development kernels and (c) cannot be fixed without a radical redesign. Modversions is not needed right now and will be added later. Everything I have done in kbuild 2.5 is needed now
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
[Caveat: I'm not much of a kernel hacker.]
My only concern with kbuild 2.5 was the lack of modversions, but since Richard is promising to add them in before the distros need them,You misquoted. Richard is not promising to add modversions, I am. I maintain both kbuild and modutils, the two halves of the modversion problem.
Sorry, that was a fingerslip. I meant to say Keith.
BTW I'm looking at your kbuild 2.5 performance measurements at
http://www.mail-archive.com/kbuild-devel%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg01434.html
Looks like 9 seconds to rebuild the kernel after a small change
on a quad 700MHz pentium, right? (Or does 'make phase4' not actually build?)
What would the time be on a dual pentium?
- Dan
Quoted 4 lines · Dan Kegel
BTW I'm looking at your kbuild 2.5 performance measurements at
http://www.mail-archive.com/kbuild-devel%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg01434.html
Looks like 9 seconds to rebuild the kernel after a small change
on a quad 700MHz pentium, right? (Or does 'make phase4' not actually build?)
Those times are for the full timestamp, dependency and integrity checking. phase4 does not build. Actual kernel build time depends on what has changed, what needs to be rebuilt and whether you are compressing the kernel.
Quoted 1 line
What would the time be on a dual pentium?
For phase1 through phase4, no difference, the startup code is almost entirely sequential and uses one cpu. After phase4 and into the compile steps, more processors are better.
Quoted 3 lines
[Caveat: I'm not much of a kernel hacker.]
My only concern with kbuild 2.5 was the lack of modversions, but since Richard is promising to add them in before the
Keith ITYM
Quoted 5 lines
distros need them, I would have no qualms about kbuild 2.5 totally replacing the old build system for the next 2.5 kernel. I'm sick and tired of 'make dep'.
What does Alan Cox think?
I believe we should end up with working Modversions. If they get disabled for a bit while it gets there its no different to the state of IDE, the block layer and many scsi drivers right now.
Alan
Quoted 11 lines
[Alan Cox <[email protected]>, May-06 2002, Mon, 16:38 +0100]
Quoted 5 lines
distros need them, I would have no qualms about kbuild 2.5 totally replacing the old build system for the next 2.5 kernel. I'm sick and tired of 'make dep'.
What does Alan Cox think?
I believe we should end up with working Modversions. If they get disabled for a bit while it gets there its no different to the state of IDE, the block layer and many scsi drivers right now.
Considering the recent threads and Alan's positive word on the topic I gather the general opinion on kbuild-2.5 inclusion leans towards a warm "yes." Looks like the perfect time for Linus to speak...
T.