lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Kernel 2.6 size increase
From
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.421 / U:2.396 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site