Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:37:32 -0800 (PST) | From | Jauder Ho <> | Subject | Re: Building .config into kernel |
| |
That seems like too much work. Something like
twinlark%jauderho% grep "CONFIG_.*=" /usr/src/linux/.config | sed -e 's/=.*//'
should work just fine.
--Jauder
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Ian Stirling wrote:
> To see how big .config might be in the kernel, I stripped blanks, # prefixed > lines, and CONFIG_, and it came to 739 bytes, or 397 gzipped. > > Or, for a more compact format: > [a-z][!-Z]OPTION_IN_CAPS > > Where the first two chars are a tag (1500 possible options, maybe a third > char would be wise, the char set is chosen, so it might > even be possible to convey it to another human in native form. Then, after > the tag, the option in upper-cased text and numbers. > > This could be parsed with either a special tool, or, perhaps more > appropriately, a module (If it's for the same kernel version, the config > options would likely be the same, so the numbers would be right) > I don't know what the number of non-conflicting config options would be, > but it's not going to be over 1024, or 4K total data, and with that number, > the kernel would bloat so much, that the increase would not be very > noticable. > > The more I think of this, the more it would be handy, for very little > overhead. > > I wonder if this format might even be appropriate, in even terser form > (only module settings of modules are listed, not their presence) > in /proc/version > It's already over 80 chars, would 100 more really be a problem? > > - > 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/ >
- 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/
| |