Re: PATCH killing dead code and design errors in pre6

Andi Kleen (ak@muc.de)
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:44:49 +0100

On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 08:27:59PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > With one exception nobody stepped in and used this feature!
> > Look at the patch the constructor usage there was just preventing
> > a hand full of zero initializations, just about 8 or 10 (frankly I don't
> > remember exactly), which looked the following way around:
>
> Im not arguing about removing the constructors. We don't use them, why keep
> them. They can be put back if/when used. Slab itself is a different matter

I hope to reintroduce the lazy copying fork optimization for big file tables
once the big NROPEN mess is sorted out. For that constructors are needed.
[To be honest I'm still pissed that that nice optimization was thrown out,
without finishing the work - supporting sparse fd arrays fully. It would be
best to either revert fork.c:copy_files to 2.1.5x state or finish the sparse
array implementation]

>
> >>From thje other paragraph I think I just got the wrong end of the stick. Its
> removing slab I don't want to see, not removing pointless constructors.

I don't think it is a good idea to throw out useful infrastructure.

-Andi

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