lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Fw: signed kernel modules?
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Dave Jones wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 02:30:08PM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> You still have to calculate dependancies and such for
> anything built modular. Also a bunch of code built into
> the bzImage changes if things are built modular.
>
> the two comparisons aren't equal. Additionally,
> you haven't factored in the fact that 'make dep'
> is no longer needed. This accounts for a big chunk
> of time on 2.4 kernel builds.
>
> > 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.
>
> oranges to oranges means _exactly_ the same options
> (where they haven't changed from 2.4 -> 2.6) are
> set/unset. Anything else is totally bogus.
>
> If you find things are still taking phenomenally
> long times to build, then something is wrong somewhere.
> Don't you find it strange you're the only person
> to have complained about this ? If it was as big
> a problem as you're suggesting, those of us who
> do nothing but build kernels all day would be up in arms.
>
> Dave
>

I think you guys probably got used to it. Also, you
seldom build the whole thing, anymore, because the
dependencies are handled differently. I was used to
building stuff on 2.4.x. When I went to build stuff using
the new build procedure I was shocked. It was like the
old days with 66MHz '486s (fast) and 33MHz i386's. Of
course there weren't modules, then so 2hrs,30min
was normal. Now, with a CPU that's 80 times faster and
a front-side bus that's 12 time faster, and SCSI
disks that are 40 times faster, there just has to
be something wrong when a complete build of the kernel
takes an hour.

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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.060 / U:3.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site