Re: Kernel 2.6 size increase

From: Miles Bader (miles@lsi.nec.co.jp)
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 00:03:34 EST


Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org> writes:
> > The point was that in _some_ embedded systems, the space-savings is
> > wanted, and so a useful thing for linux to support.
>
> As has been pointed out, there's things like the block layer that aren't
> needed if you have just a subset of common embedded-device filesystems and
> some network stuff seems to have creeped back in. All I'm trying to say
> is that before you go too far down the CONFIG_SYSFS route, investigate the
> others first as there's a fair chance of saving even more.

I'm not really trying to defend this particular config option, just
saying that the attitude of `why bother trying to cut down, it's more
featureful to include everything!' is not always valid.

You may very well be right that other subsystems offer better
gain/pain, and I'm all for attacking the low-hanging-fruit first.

> To what end? One of the things we (== PPC folks) at OLS was that, wow,
> doing PM as some sort of one-off sucks, and if at all possible we want
> to get device information (and pm dependancies) passed in so we can tell
> sysfs and get any shared driver done right for free, among other
> reasons.

[What's PM? Power Management? What does that have to do with anything?]

-Miles

-- 
Would you like fries with that?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:48 EST