Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:30:08 -0400 (EDT) | From | "Richard B. Johnson" <> | Subject | Re: Fw: signed kernel modules? |
| |
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 01:57:50PM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > > > > Attached. This difference in size might make one think that > > there's more in the 2.6.8 basic compile, but most stuff is > > strings that say "BLAW is not set", which us longer than > > "BLAW=y" or "BLAW=m". In fact, about twice as long.... > > A cursory examination show that the two aren't even remotely > similar in a lot of cases. Take the misc filesystems section > for example.. (edited for brevity) > > 2.4 > # Miscellaneous filesystems > # > # CONFIG_ADFS_FS is not set > # CONFIG_AFFS_FS is not set > # CONFIG_HFS_FS is not set > # CONFIG_HFSPLUS_FS is not set > # CONFIG_BEFS_FS is not set > # CONFIG_BFS_FS is not set > CONFIG_EFS_FS=m > CONFIG_HPFS_FS=m > CONFIG_SYSV_FS=m > CONFIG_UFS_FS=m > > 2.6 > > # Miscellaneous filesystems > # > CONFIG_AFFS_FS=m > CONFIG_HFS_FS=m > CONFIG_HFSPLUS_FS=m > CONFIG_BEFS_FS=m > CONFIG_BFS_FS=m > CONFIG_EFS_FS=m > CONFIG_JFFS2_FS=m > CONFIG_JFFS2_FS_NAND=y > CONFIG_JFFS2_ZLIB=y > CONFIG_JFFS2_RTIME=y > CONFIG_CRAMFS=m > CONFIG_VXFS_FS=m > CONFIG_QNX4FS_FS=m > CONFIG_SYSV_FS=m > CONFIG_UFS_FS=m > > And you wonder why 2.6 is taking longer ? > There are many more cases like this in your configs.. > > Unless you're comparing apples to apples, this is > just nonsense. > > Dave >
No. I didn't time `make modules`, only `make bzImage`. `make modules` takes too long to time (really) I don't want to use any CPU resources which will screw up the timing and I need to use the computer.
A wall-clock guess is that `make modules` takes about an hour on the new system while it takes about 4 minutes on the old. The new kernel build procedure is truly horrible for the wall-clock time that is used.
For oranges vs oranges, if I compile Version 2.4.26 on a version 2.6.8 OS computer, the compile-time is within tens of seconds. I'm not complaining about the resulting kernel code performance, only the abortion^M^M^M^M^M^Mjunk used to create a new kernel. It 'make' won't do it, we have a problem and make needs to be fixed.
Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.8 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips). Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction.
- 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/
| |