* Thu, 6 Sep 2007 23:19:55 +0200
>
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:16:15PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
>> * Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:39:31 +0200
>>
>> []
>> >> > His patch improves the build process.
>> >>
>> >> I would like to know timing, btw. Size, especially shown 1%, doesn't
>> >> matter if link time increased dramatically. `Allyes' config, when i
*if*
>> >> had fast and rammish machine was terrible thing (last winter). If 32
>> >> cores/cpus is will of author, then i'm even more suspicious.
>> >
>> > For non-developers size and speed of the kernel matter much more than
>> > compile time.
>>
>> I'm talking about benefits for the process (developers, testers) and
>> the result (end users, dogs eating own food :).
>
> Your claim was that link time was more important than code size, and
> that claim is in many cases wrong.
I just noted, that maybe (*if*) build/link time have been affected.
There was an example of size reduction, why not to have timings also?
I guess, developer can spend time tuning written driver with that
option/patch. But what you will write in the help message for
testers/users? In this case build time is important obviously. Runtime
isn't affected at all, except, maybe, ~1% increase in bzImage unzipping.
Whatever.
>> > When you go towards embedded systems with limited resources a 1% size
>> > decrease would often be worth it even if it would (hypothetically)
>> > increase the compile time by a factor of 10.
>>
>> text data bss dec hex filename
>> 5159478 1005139 406784 6571401 644589 linux-2.6.23-rc4.org/vmlinux
>> 5131822 996090 401439 6529351 63a147 linux-2.6.23-rc4.gc/vmlinux
>>
>> Are this numbers show embedded target? I think no. Also time factor of
>> *10* can be spent more productively reviewing actual code of parts, that
>> are going to be embedded, no?
>
> First of all, please lookup the word "hypothetically" in a dictionary.
Do you mean hand-waving?
Whatever.
> And code review and Denys' patch have cumulative effects since his patch
> results in improvements that can't be resonably done other than at
> the ld and/or gcc level.
I was talking about introducing such things in development process.
Current kconfig may be not flexible, it must not lead to further problems
and silver-bullet solutions.
>> []
>> >> > There's nothing that requires treatment.
>> >>
>> >> [Help for] The developers/contributors of those drivers, no?
>> >>...
>> >
>> > They did everything right.
>> >
>> > You should better try to understand the problem first before behaving as
>> > if you knew everything better than everyone else...
>>
>> OK, thank you very much. Now, describe what problem you are talking
>> about, please. I see non.
>
> If you don't understand what the patches in this thread are about then
> you shouldn't have started commenting on this thread...
Not first time i see, what i should do. Thank you very much, Adrian!
You know better, what i know. Great.
Then say from the beginning that you're not interested in reviewing
and view-exchanging process, you know better, what i should do. Thus, i
will not waste my time explaining anything.
Whatever.
____
-
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]
