> Beyond the muscle memory aspect, nonsensical naming and inanely flat file > hierarchies annoy kernel developers
Flat(ish) file hierarchies are good -- less typing. If you're copy-pasting then it doesn't matter much (it still matters a little because long filename occupy more space on the screen and in logs). > makes it harder for newbies to understand the kernel source as well. That's fine too. > drwxr-xr-x crypto # move to kernel/crypto/ or security/crypto/ No, crypto/ is fine. If everything arch independent should live at kernel/ then why should kernel/ exist at all? It should be trimmed and everything moved to the top level directory (OK, I'm not really suggesting that). > drwxr-xr-x ipc # move to kernel/ipc/ No, same reason. It was there since time immemorial. > drwxr-xr-x samples # move to Documentation/samples/ Just delete it. Best API usage samples are in modern parts of main tree, actively maintained/updated. > drwxr-xr-x scripts # move to build/scripts/ eh > drwxr-xr-x sound # move to drivers/sound/ NO! it has hw independent part and pretty big one. > drwxr-xr-x tools If tools/ people could somewhow stop duplicating large parts of include/linux and arch/x86/include/asm it will be very much appreciated. > - 'block' could in principle move to drivers/block/core/ but it's fine > at the top level too I think. It is fine indeed. Short name, top level dir, arch and hw independent code -- it is perfect. > I'm volunteering to do this (in a scripted, repeatable, reviewable, > tweakable and "easy to execute in a quiet moment" fashion), although > I also expect you to balk at the churn. :-) Can I pay you $100 to not do this ever? In Russia we say "what has grown has grown" and it is not like Linux is perfect example of intelligent design.
