[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111112130449.GA10821@comet.deepsky.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 22:04:49 +0900
From: Jérôme Pinot <ngc891@...il.com>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: Evolution of kernel size
On 11/11/11 11:51, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> 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.
That's exactly the point :-)
> 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.
Measuring code complexity or work/cost of the source code was out of my
scope.
--
Jérôme Pinot
http://ngc891.blogdns.net/
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists