On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 10:09:52PM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Monday 27 February 2006 17:29, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 05:18:06PM -0500, James C. Georgas wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2006-25-02 at 17:01 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > CONFIG_UNIX=m doesn't make much sense.
> > >
> > > I've been building it as a module forever. I often load kernels from
> > > floppy disk, and building CONFIG_UNIX as a module often makes the
> > > difference between the kernel fitting or not fitting on the disk. Could
> > > we please keep this functionality?
> >
> > If size is important for you, you should consider completely disabling
> > module support in your kernels:
> >
> > In my testing, disabling module support brings you a space gain in the
> > range of 10%.
> >
>
> This only matters when you tight on memory - in the scenario above memory
> may not be a great concern but kernel image size is because modules could
> go on other medium.
It does also matter in the kernel image size case, since you have to put
enough modules to the other medium for having a effect bigger than the
kernel image size increase from setting CONFIG_MODULES=y.
> Dmitry
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
