* David Lang <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > And the thing is, in hindsight, after such huge flamewars, years down the
> > line, almost never do I see the following question asked: 'what were we
> > thinking merging that crap??'. If any question arises it's usually along
> > the
> > lines of: 'what was the big fuss about?'. So I think by and large the
> > process
> > works.
>
> counterexamples, devfs, tux
Actually, we never merged the Tux web server upstream, and the devfs concept
has
kind of made a comeback via devtmpfs.
And there are examples of bits we _should_ have merged:
- GGI (General Graphics Interface)
- [ and we should probably also have merged kgdb a decade earlier to avoid
wasting all that energy on flaming about it unnecessarily ;-) ]
And the thing is, I specifically talked about 'near zero cost' kernel patches
that
don't appreciably impact the 'core kernel'.
There's plenty of examples of features with non-trivial 'core kernel' costs
that
weren't merged, and rightfully IMHO:
- the STREAMS ABI
- various forms of a generic kABI that were proposed
- moving the kernel to C++ :-)
... and devfs arguably belongs into that category as well.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
