linux-kernel - Re: Evolution of kernel size

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 11 Nov 2011 11:51:01 -0500
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Jérôme Pinot <ngc891@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Evolution of kernel size

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:33:33PM +0900, Jérôme Pinot wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I took some time to make a graph of the evolution of the size of the
> linux kernel tar.bz2 since version 1.0 till 3.1 (297 releases).
> It doesn't count the stable branches (2.6.x.y).

The question really is what are you trying to show with the graph, and
what do you plan to use the graph for?  If it is estimating the size
of disk space that you'll need at some point in the future, that's
fine.  If it's for entertainment value, that's fine too.

But if it's to try to make some claims about (for example) kernel
complexity, you'd do better to measure the size of various specific
subsystems, such as mm, core kernel, a specific file system, etc.  And
even then, the statistics can be misleading since sometimes
refactoring to reduce complexity or removing unneeded abstraction
layers can end up reducing the size of the subsystem, but leave it in
a more maintainable state.

						- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/