From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH] dnet: Dave DNET ethernet controller driver Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:16:03 -0400 Message-ID: <20090313001603.GA13764@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090311171354.04c7a63d@nehalam> <49B8E6D4.2030702@weinigel.se> <20090312.055523.193191701.davem@davemloft.net> <49B91A7B.7050303@weinigel.se> <20090312151211.GB24995@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <49B93777.7030202@weinigel.se> <20090312174933.GC24995@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <49B95386.2030600@weinigel.se> <20090312190517.GD24995@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20090312215919.GA19200@shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christer Weinigel , David Miller , shemminger@vyatta.com, s.hauer@pengutronix.de, yanok@emcraft.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, netdev@vger.kernel.org, wd@denx.de, dzu@denx.de To: Jamie Lokier Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:53082 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751802AbZCMAQe (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:16:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090312215919.GA19200@shareable.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:59:19PM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Neil Horman wrote: > > I've not looked at the figures lately, but how much space does the > > dhcp client and nfs root code take up in the kernel these days? > > About 4k apparently. See the difference from "400k compressed?". > Also, uncompressing that may add 0.5 second boot time on a slow CPU :-) > > > I sympathize with you. This is exactly what soured me on embedded > > work a few years back. Embedded shops are forever compromising > > doing things correctly in the name of time and schedules, never > > paying any heed to the possibility that taking extra time to do > > things in an agreed upon, organized and standard fashion might pay > > off for them in the long run. > > I must admit that a solution which makes the effective kernel size > 800k larger (your figure) doesn't look like a good standard to me. > > If that was the "standard", I'd be tempted to add a MAC address driver > hack to the kernel to save the space :-) > > -- Jamie > I agree that the simple 8k savings is less than stellar, but if you're setting up a development environment over NFS root, your savings are really unbounded. Need more space? Carve out a config option in the kernel that you don't need immediately, build it as a module, and store it on the NFS root, keeping only the needed functionality for NFS root in the monolithic image. Lather, rinse, repeat until you have enough space.