Re: Kernel 2.6 size increase

From: Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Bernardo Innocenti <bernie@develer.com>,
	Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	uClinux development list <uclinux-dev@uclinux.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.6 size increase
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 21:17:43 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030731041743.GD27214@ip68-0-152-218.tc.ph.cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <buoel07tqi5.fsf@mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp>

On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 10:49:06AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org> 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/