From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S272369AbTGaERq (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2003 00:17:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S272373AbTGaERp (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2003 00:17:45 -0400 Received: from fed1mtao08.cox.net ([68.6.19.123]:54249 "EHLO fed1mtao08.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S272369AbTGaERo (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2003 00:17:44 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:17:43 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Miles Bader Cc: Alan Cox , Bernardo Innocenti , Willy Tarreau , Christoph Hellwig , uClinux development list , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Kernel 2.6 size increase Message-ID: <20030731041743.GD27214@ip68-0-152-218.tc.ph.cox.net> References: <200307232046.46990.bernie@develer.com> <200307240007.15377.bernie@develer.com> <20030723222747.GF643@alpha.home.local> <200307242227.16439.bernie@develer.com> <20030729222921.GK16051@ip68-0-152-218.tc.ph.cox.net> <1059518889.6838.19.camel@dhcp22.swansea.linux.org.uk> <20030729230657.GL16051@ip68-0-152-218.tc.ph.cox.net> <20030730153311.GA27214@ip68-0-152-218.tc.ph.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 10:49:06AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: > Tom Rini writes: > > > but not nice enough to justify requiring more memory or whatever (of > > > course just that one feature's not going to make much difference, > > > but in aggregate, they might). > > > > Well, that sort-of depends on which 'embedded' board you're talking > > about really. > > The point was that in _some_ embedded systems, the space-savings is > wanted, and so a useful thing for linux to support. To what end? One of the things we (== PPC folks) at OLS was that, wow, doing PM as some sort of one-off sucks, and if at all possible we want to get device information (and pm dependancies) passed in so we can tell sysfs and get any shared driver done right for free, among other reasons. As has been pointed out, there's things like the block layer that aren't needed if you have just a subset of common embedded-device filesystems and some network stuff seems to have creeped back in. All I'm trying to say is that before you go too far down the CONFIG_SYSFS route, investigate the others first as there's a fair chance of saving even more. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/