Kal Cutter Conley <kal.conley@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> "More annoying" is not a great argument, though. You're basically saying >> "please complicate your code so I don't have to complicate mine". And >> since kernel API is essentially frozen forever, adding more of them >> carries a pretty high cost, which is why kernel developers tend not to >> be easily swayed by convenience arguments (if all you want is a more >> convenient API, just build one on top of the kernel primitives and wrap >> it into a library). > > I was trying to make a fair comparison from the user's perspective > between having to allocate huge pages and deal with discontiguous > buffers. That was all. > > I think the "your code" distinction is a bit harsh. The kernel is a > community project. Why isn't it "our" code? I am trying to add a > feature that I think is generally useful to people. The kernel only > exists to serve its users. Oh, I'm sorry if that came across as harsh, that was not my intention! I was certainly not trying to make a "you vs us" distinction; I was just trying to explain why making changes on the kernel side carries a higher cost than an equivalent (or even slightly more complex) change on the userspace side, because of the UAPI consideration. > I believe I am doing more good than harm sending these patches. I don't think so! You've certainly sparked a discussion, that is good :) -Toke
