lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Bloat? (khttpd)
Date
From
Marek Habersack <grendel@vip.net.pl> said:
> * Stephen Frost said:

> > > Come on, I don't understand the noise. You don't like it, you don't
> > > use it. After all compiling it in is OPTIONAL, right?

> Downloading it isn't. Also, it sounds like it may be mucking in other

It's whole 20kb to download... Not a big deal, IMO.

Yes, _taht_ part of the discussion is plainly ridiculous.

> > places it shouldn't be... I don't know much about that though, just
> > saw someone else mention it.

> Yes, I saw it as well, but I find it hard to imagine (I don't know the
> internals) that it affects the code when it is DISABLED.

It might not affect the executing code, but it certainly affects the source
(#ifdef THIS_OR_THAT), and also impacts the design (even when disabled, the
rest of the code must anticipate it being enabled), and complicates testing
and debugging (instead of one version of the code you need to check three:
With, as module, and without).
--
Horst von Brand vonbrand@sleipnir.valparaiso.cl
Casilla 9G, Viña del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.061 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site