Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 18 Sep 2008 22:17:22 +0200 | | From | Takashi Iwai <> | | Subject | Re: diet-kconfig: a script to trim unneeded kconfigs |
| |
At Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:25:41 -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Hi Takashi, > > On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 01:55:26 +0200 > Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > a topic that just came up in kernel summit is a script to remove > > unneeded kernel configs automatically to reduce the compile time. > > Incidentally, I already wrote such a script during the last SUSE hack > > week a couple of weeks ago, so I'd like to share here, hopefully to > > give an idea for further improvements. > > > > The script checks the currently loaded modules and trims other > > CONFIG_XXX=m simply, and tries make oldconfig, and writes out the > > resultant .config in the current directory after some checks. > > You can specify the config file via option, as default, it reads from > > /proc/config.gz. > > I agree with Giacomo: you should also check for /boot/config-`uname -r` > and /boot/config-`uname -r`.gz.
OK, I'll add the check of these as fallback. Any known paths for other distros?
> Also, if the idea is to make life easier for kernel newbies, I think the better > would be to have the script called at kernel Makefile (something like "make > diet"), and having a few other config's available somewhere at kernel tree, > since even a "minimal" kernel may need (or not) a few random modules, like > usb-storage. So, I think we should open a dialog that allows the selection of > using the previous kernel config or selecting between a few profiles like > "minimalist" (just the auto-detected things), "desktop" (adding things like > usb-storage), "notebook" (with a power-saving optimized config), > "server" (adding stuff like LVM, RAID5 and some advanced network configs).
There are different perspectives for this. My goal to reduce the build time with the existing kernel config for a specific hardware. That is, it makes eaiser to create another set of kernel with test patches or bisect.
OTOH, it would be definitely useful if we can create a clean minimum kernel config from scratch based on the hardware information. For that, the use-case specific configuration (or preset) would be good.
> > The script is VERY hackish. I should have begun with perl or whatever > > better script language, but I chose bash and co. So, don't expect > > much code quality. I'm no script guy after all :) > > Using just a shellscript and binutils seems to be better than using other > tools, since it allows the usage on minimal configured systems where the user > might not have perl or other scripting languages.
Well, perl or python is most likely installed on every modern system, so I think we don't stick with bash & co. But, I see your point, and it's also the reason I started with bash, etc.
thanks,
Takashi
|  |