lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Bloat report 2.6.3 -> 2.6.4
On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 11:33:32AM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
>
> I actually did explicitly note this problem in the part you clipped.

I clipped nothing, I quoted your _complete_ mail.

> But I think it's fair to say that new features that are on by default
> are in fact bloat in some sense.

Perhaps in some sense, but not in any interesting sense.

For the average computer you can buy at your supermarket today it isn't
very interesting whether the kernel is bigger by 1 MB or not.

People who need to care about the size of the kernel [1] use hand-tuned
.config's that are far away from defconfig - and those people wouldn't
enable unneeded features that are on by default.

You use a metric "size increase of a defconfig kernel [2]", and I simply
claim that this metric doesn't measure anything useful for practical
purposes.

cu
Adrian

[1] e.g. for small embedded systems, very old computers or
boot _floppies_
[2] modulo some compensation for changed defconfig's

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:01    [W:0.338 / U:0.256 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site