On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 12:26 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 10:52:26AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 23:30 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > Applying this doesn't seem to make much sense until it's clear whether a
> > > "build everything except for assembler files at once" approach (that
> > > needs less globals) or your current "compile only multi-obj at once"
> > > approach (that requires more globals).
> >
> > For the kernel itself, I think that building a directory at once is the
> > way forward. For modules, obviously the scope is more limited.
>
> For any desktop or server you buy today your patches are a nice
> improvement but not that important.
Yes, I agree -- although I haven't tested for performance yet; there
_may_ be something surprisingly improved in there but I suspect it's
unlikely.
> But projects like embedded systems or OLPC that really need want
> kernels should be the same projects that already avoid the
> 10% size penalty of CONFIG_MODULES=y.
OLPC has USB ports and wants to be fairly flexible about being able to
connect stuff -- I don't think we can turn off CONFIG_MODULES in its
running kernel. However, its _boot_ kernel (LinuxBIOS) has
CONFIG_MODULES=n, and that's where we _really_ care about the space.
--
dwmw2
-
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]
