Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs

2007-11-14 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 12:46:20AM -0700, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
 Finally they replied and asked to rediff it against their
 git tree. I did that and sent patches back. No reply since then.
 
 And mind you, the patch is not trying to do anything
 complex, it mostly moves code around, removes 'inline',
 adds 'const'. What should I think about it?

I'm waiting for an ACK/NAK from Hannes, the maintainer.  What should I
do?

-- 
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step.


Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs

2007-11-13 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:50:08PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
 It's a 540MByte download over a slow link for everyone else.

Where do you get this number from?
$ du -sh .git/objects/pack/
249M.git/objects/pack/
$ du -sh .git/objects/
253M.git/objects/

ie about half what you claim.

-- 
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step.


Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs

2007-11-13 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 01:43:53PM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
 Matthew Wilcox wrote:
 ie about half what you claim.
 ..
 
 No, it's from earlier in this very thread:
 
 Adrian Bunk wrote:
 git clone \ 
 git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
 ..
 
 mkdir t
 cd t
 git clone 
 git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
 (wait half an hour)
 /usr/bin/du -s linux-2.6
 522732  linux-2.6

You're assuming that everything in linux-2.6 was downloaded; that's
not true.  Everything in linux-2.6/.git was downloaded; but then you do a
checkout which happens to approximately double the size of the linux-2.6
directory.  If you do git-clone -n, you'll get a closer estimate to the
size of the download.

I suppose git-clone should grow a -v option that it could pass to rsync
to let us find out how many bytes are actually transferred, but i'm
happy to go with 250MB as a close estimate to the amount of data to xfer.

When you compare it to the 60MB tarballs that are published, it's really
not that bad.

-- 
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step.