* The end of embedded Linux? @ 2002-10-05 19:36 Gigi Duru 2002-10-05 19:46 ` Francois Romieu ` (8 more replies) 0 siblings, 9 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Gigi Duru @ 2002-10-05 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Trivial experiment: configure out _ALL_ the options on 2.5.38 and build bzImage. My result? A totally useless 270KB kernel (compressed). Now try to put in some useful stuff and the _compressed_ image will cheerfully approach 1MB. Where are the days when a 200KB kernel would be fully equipped? I know you guys are struggling to bring "world class VM & IO" to Linux, going for SMPs and other big toys, but you are about to lose what you already have: the embedded market. As an embedded developer, I can't stand bloat. I think an OS designer should feel the same, and develop in a fully modular and configurable manner, going for both speed and size. For a long time I've felt that Linux has got it right, but lately I'm not that sure anymore. Gigi Duru __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 19:36 The end of embedded Linux? Gigi Duru @ 2002-10-05 19:46 ` Francois Romieu 2002-10-05 19:49 ` Ben Greear ` (7 subsequent siblings) 8 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Francois Romieu @ 2002-10-05 19:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gigi Duru; +Cc: linux-kernel Gigi Duru <giduru@yahoo.com> : [...] > As an embedded developer, I can't stand bloat. I think > an OS designer should feel the same, and develop in a > fully modular and configurable manner, going for both > speed and size. For a long time I've felt that Linux > has got it right, but lately I'm not that sure > anymore. It has been stated many times that it would be nice to have an option dedicated to devices with few memory (no big hashes etc.). You know what you have to do :o) -- Ueimor ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 19:36 The end of embedded Linux? Gigi Duru 2002-10-05 19:46 ` Francois Romieu @ 2002-10-05 19:49 ` Ben Greear 2002-10-05 19:53 ` Andre Hedrick ` (6 subsequent siblings) 8 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Ben Greear @ 2002-10-05 19:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gigi Duru; +Cc: linux-kernel Gigi Duru wrote: > Trivial experiment: configure out _ALL_ the options on > 2.5.38 and build bzImage. My result? A totally useless > 270KB kernel (compressed). Maybe you could explain the options you had to add to make it useful to you? That may help folks figure out where the thing can be slimmed down. > Now try to put in some useful stuff and the > _compressed_ image will cheerfully approach 1MB. Where > are the days when a 200KB kernel would be fully > equipped? Gone too are the days where you could easily buy something as small as a 2MB flash chip :) Ben -- Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> <Ben_Greear AT excite.com> President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 19:36 The end of embedded Linux? Gigi Duru 2002-10-05 19:46 ` Francois Romieu 2002-10-05 19:49 ` Ben Greear @ 2002-10-05 19:53 ` Andre Hedrick 2002-10-05 20:52 ` Gigi Duru 2002-10-05 19:53 ` jbradford ` (5 subsequent siblings) 8 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2002-10-05 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gigi Duru; +Cc: linux-kernel Well have a nice day and go pay for windriver licenses, or use the source to adopt to your needs, or hire somebody who can do it for you. Whinning will not help, doing will. Regards, On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Gigi Duru wrote: > Trivial experiment: configure out _ALL_ the options on > 2.5.38 and build bzImage. My result? A totally useless > 270KB kernel (compressed). > > Now try to put in some useful stuff and the > _compressed_ image will cheerfully approach 1MB. Where > are the days when a 200KB kernel would be fully > equipped? > > I know you guys are struggling to bring "world class > VM & IO" to Linux, going for SMPs and other big toys, > but you are about to lose what you already have: the > embedded market. > > As an embedded developer, I can't stand bloat. I think > an OS designer should feel the same, and develop in a > fully modular and configurable manner, going for both > speed and size. For a long time I've felt that Linux > has got it right, but lately I'm not that sure > anymore. > > Gigi Duru > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > http://faith.yahoo.com > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 19:53 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2002-10-05 20:52 ` Gigi Duru 2002-10-05 20:58 ` Mark Mielke ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Gigi Duru @ 2002-10-05 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick; +Cc: linux-kernel Now thats some advice from a kernel hacker... You really don't seem to care too much about embedded, do you? It's not about what I do not do, it's about what YOU do (I'm not talking to you personally, but to the hacker community as a whole). The kernel core didn't jump to 270KB compressed because I didn't do something. Let me reformulate for you: * some years ago, (2.2 era) I was more than happy about embedding Linux. * along came 2.4, and things got fuzzy (should we move on, or stick to the good ol' stuff?) * now, 2.6 (or whatever) seems like a very bad choice for us. * I wonder about the next one (2.8/whatever): will it require a mainframe to run? It's the trend, you see: you were on the right track but now you're loosing it. From the embedded point of view, YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION. And don't give me the "use 2.2" advice. Stuff is being back-ported, I know, but not all of it. Why are old versions being actively maintained anyway? Isn't that a realization that those old versions are better suited for some tasks than the new one? Why would anyone choose to use 2.2? Because it serves him better. Now, why is 2.2 serving someone better than 2.4? That's something I'd like you to answer... The beauty of Linux was it's scalability (I'm not talking SMP here): you had the same kernel running on the appliance, on the PC and on that mainframe. Things were smooth, things were perfect. I would have loved to preserve that... Regards, Gigi --- Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> wrote: > > Well have a nice day and go pay for windriver > licenses, or use the source > to adopt to your needs, or hire somebody who can do > it for you. > Whinning will not help, doing will. > > Regards, > > Andre Hedrick > LAD Storage Consulting Group > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 20:52 ` Gigi Duru @ 2002-10-05 20:58 ` Mark Mielke 2002-10-06 1:54 ` Andre Hedrick 2002-10-07 23:28 ` Gigi Duru 2002-10-06 0:46 ` Rik van Riel ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 2 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2002-10-05 20:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gigi Duru; +Cc: Andre Hedrick, linux-kernel You could always try examining the code for yourself and making a suggestion regarding inappropriate dependencies, or bloated dependencies. One of the problems you have here is... Linux 'hackers' are not trying to sell you an embedded solution. If anything, you are getting a freebie, and you should be gracious that you don't have to pay full price for a commercial solution... Other members of the 'hacker computer' who work for companies that use Linux in their embedded product tend not to scream and complain. Instead, they roll up their sleeves and get to it... One of the methods described above has a better chance of being effective. Which one do you think that might be? :-) mark P.S. Linux 2.5 is a development kernel - the fact that is isn't polished to your liking is not a surprise. It isn't polished to *many* peoples likings, which is the primary reason that people such as myself have not installed it. On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 01:52:38PM -0700, Gigi Duru wrote: > Now thats some advice from a kernel hacker... You > really don't seem to care too much about embedded, do > you? > > It's not about what I do not do, it's about what YOU > do (I'm not talking to you personally, but to the > hacker community as a whole). The kernel core didn't > jump to 270KB compressed because I didn't do > something. > > Let me reformulate for you: > * some years ago, (2.2 era) I was more than happy > about embedding Linux. > * along came 2.4, and things got fuzzy (should we move > on, or stick to the good ol' stuff?) > * now, 2.6 (or whatever) seems like a very bad choice > for us. > * I wonder about the next one (2.8/whatever): will it > require a mainframe to run? > > It's the trend, you see: you were on the right track > but now you're loosing it. From the embedded point of > view, YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION. > > And don't give me the "use 2.2" advice. Stuff is being > back-ported, I know, but not all of it. > > Why are old versions being actively maintained anyway? > Isn't that a realization that those old versions are > better suited for some tasks than the new one? Why > would anyone choose to use 2.2? Because it serves him > better. > > Now, why is 2.2 serving someone better than 2.4? > That's something I'd like you to answer... > > The beauty of Linux was it's scalability (I'm not > talking SMP here): you had the same kernel running on > the appliance, on the PC and on that mainframe. Things > were smooth, things were perfect. I would have loved > to preserve that... > > Regards, > Gigi > > --- Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> wrote: > > > > Well have a nice day and go pay for windriver > > licenses, or use the source > > to adopt to your needs, or hire somebody who can do > > it for you. > > Whinning will not help, doing will. > > > > Regards, > > > > Andre Hedrick > > LAD Storage Consulting Group > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > http://faith.yahoo.com > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 20:58 ` Mark Mielke @ 2002-10-06 1:54 ` Andre Hedrick 2002-10-07 23:28 ` Gigi Duru 1 sibling, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2002-10-06 1:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mielke; +Cc: Gigi Duru, linux-kernel WHOOPS! Amen! Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Mark Mielke wrote: > You could always try examining the code for yourself and making a > suggestion regarding inappropriate dependencies, or bloated > dependencies. One of the problems you have here is... Linux 'hackers' > are not trying to sell you an embedded solution. If anything, you > are getting a freebie, and you should be gracious that you don't > have to pay full price for a commercial solution... > > Other members of the 'hacker computer' who work for companies that use > Linux in their embedded product tend not to scream and complain. Instead, > they roll up their sleeves and get to it... > > One of the methods described above has a better chance of being effective. > > Which one do you think that might be? :-) > > mark > > P.S. Linux 2.5 is a development kernel - the fact that is isn't polished > to your liking is not a surprise. It isn't polished to *many* peoples > likings, which is the primary reason that people such as myself have > not installed it. > > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 01:52:38PM -0700, Gigi Duru wrote: > > Now thats some advice from a kernel hacker... You > > really don't seem to care too much about embedded, do > > you? > > > > It's not about what I do not do, it's about what YOU > > do (I'm not talking to you personally, but to the > > hacker community as a whole). The kernel core didn't > > jump to 270KB compressed because I didn't do > > something. > > > > Let me reformulate for you: > > * some years ago, (2.2 era) I was more than happy > > about embedding Linux. > > * along came 2.4, and things got fuzzy (should we move > > on, or stick to the good ol' stuff?) > > * now, 2.6 (or whatever) seems like a very bad choice > > for us. > > * I wonder about the next one (2.8/whatever): will it > > require a mainframe to run? > > > > It's the trend, you see: you were on the right track > > but now you're loosing it. From the embedded point of > > view, YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION. > > > > And don't give me the "use 2.2" advice. Stuff is being > > back-ported, I know, but not all of it. > > > > Why are old versions being actively maintained anyway? > > Isn't that a realization that those old versions are > > better suited for some tasks than the new one? Why > > would anyone choose to use 2.2? Because it serves him > > better. > > > > Now, why is 2.2 serving someone better than 2.4? > > That's something I'd like you to answer... > > > > The beauty of Linux was it's scalability (I'm not > > talking SMP here): you had the same kernel running on > > the appliance, on the PC and on that mainframe. Things > > were smooth, things were perfect. I would have loved > > to preserve that... > > > > Regards, > > Gigi > > > > --- Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> wrote: > > > > > > Well have a nice day and go pay for windriver > > > licenses, or use the source > > > to adopt to your needs, or hire somebody who can do > > > it for you. > > > Whinning will not help, doing will. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Andre Hedrick > > > LAD Storage Consulting Group > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > > http://faith.yahoo.com > > - > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > -- > mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ > . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder > |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | > | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada > > One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all > and in the darkness bind them... > > http://mark.mielke.cc/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 20:58 ` Mark Mielke 2002-10-06 1:54 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2002-10-07 23:28 ` Gigi Duru 1 sibling, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Gigi Duru @ 2002-10-07 23:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mielke; +Cc: linux-kernel this is a bug report, not a feature request ;) --- Mark Mielke <mark@mark.mielke.cc> wrote: > You could always try examining the code for yourself > and making a > suggestion regarding inappropriate dependencies, or > bloated > dependencies. One of the problems you have here > is... Linux 'hackers' > are not trying to sell you an embedded solution. If > anything, you > are getting a freebie, and you should be gracious > that you don't > have to pay full price for a commercial solution... > > Other members of the 'hacker computer' who work for > companies that use > Linux in their embedded product tend not to scream > and complain. Instead, > they roll up their sleeves and get to it... > > One of the methods described above has a better > chance of being effective. > > Which one do you think that might be? :-) > > mark > > P.S. Linux 2.5 is a development kernel - the fact > that is isn't polished > to your liking is not a surprise. It isn't > polished to *many* peoples > likings, which is the primary reason that > people such as myself have > not installed it. > > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 01:52:38PM -0700, Gigi Duru > wrote: > > Now thats some advice from a kernel hacker... You > > really don't seem to care too much about embedded, > do > > you? > > > > It's not about what I do not do, it's about what > YOU > > do (I'm not talking to you personally, but to the > > hacker community as a whole). The kernel core > didn't > > jump to 270KB compressed because I didn't do > > something. > > > > Let me reformulate for you: > > * some years ago, (2.2 era) I was more than happy > > about embedding Linux. > > * along came 2.4, and things got fuzzy (should we > move > > on, or stick to the good ol' stuff?) > > * now, 2.6 (or whatever) seems like a very bad > choice > > for us. > > * I wonder about the next one (2.8/whatever): will > it > > require a mainframe to run? > > > > It's the trend, you see: you were on the right > track > > but now you're loosing it. From the embedded point > of > > view, YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION. > > > > And don't give me the "use 2.2" advice. Stuff is > being > > back-ported, I know, but not all of it. > > > > Why are old versions being actively maintained > anyway? > > Isn't that a realization that those old versions > are > > better suited for some tasks than the new one? Why > > would anyone choose to use 2.2? Because it serves > him > > better. > > > > Now, why is 2.2 serving someone better than 2.4? > > That's something I'd like you to answer... > > > > The beauty of Linux was it's scalability (I'm not > > talking SMP here): you had the same kernel running > on > > the appliance, on the PC and on that mainframe. > Things > > were smooth, things were perfect. I would have > loved > > to preserve that... > > > > Regards, > > Gigi > > > > --- Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> wrote: > > > > > > Well have a nice day and go pay for windriver > > > licenses, or use the source > > > to adopt to your needs, or hire somebody who can > do > > > it for you. > > > Whinning will not help, doing will. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Andre Hedrick > > > LAD Storage Consulting Group > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > > http://faith.yahoo.com > > - > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line > "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at > http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > -- > mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com > __________________________ > . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ > | Neighbourhood Coder > |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ > | > | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ > | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada > > One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, > one ring to bring them all > and in the darkness bind > them... > > http://mark.mielke.cc/ > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 20:52 ` Gigi Duru 2002-10-05 20:58 ` Mark Mielke @ 2002-10-06 0:46 ` Rik van Riel 2002-10-06 1:52 ` Andre Hedrick ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Rik van Riel @ 2002-10-06 0:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gigi Duru; +Cc: Andre Hedrick, linux-kernel On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Gigi Duru wrote: > It's not about what I do not do, it's about what YOU > do (I'm not talking to you personally, but to the > hacker community as a whole). The kernel core didn't > jump to 270KB compressed because I didn't do > something. While that is true, you have to keep in mind that the kernel size won't go back to 270 kB _unless_ you (or other embedded people) do something. Do you care enough about the problem to help working on a solution, or do you only care enough to complain but not to fix ? ;) regards, Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Spamtraps of the month: september@surriel.com trac@trac.org ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 20:52 ` Gigi Duru 2002-10-05 20:58 ` Mark Mielke 2002-10-06 0:46 ` Rik van Riel @ 2002-10-06 1:52 ` Andre Hedrick 2002-10-06 20:20 ` Gigi Duru 2002-10-06 4:28 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-06 13:02 ` Ian Molton 4 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2002-10-06 1:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gigi Duru; +Cc: linux-kernel Well given that I get emails for "embedded" space nagging me about supporting their stuff yet they will not reveal the alterations to the GPL code they borrowed, and moan when the discuss of paying for consulting on opensource they have illegally closed. Yeah, I have zero compasion for the embedded folks. Gee every considered embedding somthing with a little horsepower? So again, if you want change? Submit it. If you want a consultant? Pay for it. Next running around calling people "hackers" is not the best way to win friends. Do you think you could sell your embedded cruft if you told your customer base, "Gee, I am just a hacker. Please buy my product." Dead thread for me now. Cheers, On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Gigi Duru wrote: > Now thats some advice from a kernel hacker... You > really don't seem to care too much about embedded, do > you? > > It's not about what I do not do, it's about what YOU > do (I'm not talking to you personally, but to the > hacker community as a whole). The kernel core didn't > jump to 270KB compressed because I didn't do > something. > > Let me reformulate for you: > * some years ago, (2.2 era) I was more than happy > about embedding Linux. > * along came 2.4, and things got fuzzy (should we move > on, or stick to the good ol' stuff?) > * now, 2.6 (or whatever) seems like a very bad choice > for us. > * I wonder about the next one (2.8/whatever): will it > require a mainframe to run? > > It's the trend, you see: you were on the right track > but now you're loosing it. From the embedded point of > view, YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION. > > And don't give me the "use 2.2" advice. Stuff is being > back-ported, I know, but not all of it. > > Why are old versions being actively maintained anyway? > Isn't that a realization that those old versions are > better suited for some tasks than the new one? Why > would anyone choose to use 2.2? Because it serves him > better. > > Now, why is 2.2 serving someone better than 2.4? > That's something I'd like you to answer... > > The beauty of Linux was it's scalability (I'm not > talking SMP here): you had the same kernel running on > the appliance, on the PC and on that mainframe. Things > were smooth, things were perfect. I would have loved > to preserve that... > > Regards, > Gigi > > --- Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> wrote: > > > > Well have a nice day and go pay for windriver > > licenses, or use the source > > to adopt to your needs, or hire somebody who can do > > it for you. > > Whinning will not help, doing will. > > > > Regards, > > > > Andre Hedrick > > LAD Storage Consulting Group > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > http://faith.yahoo.com > Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-06 1:52 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2002-10-06 20:20 ` Gigi Duru 2002-10-07 2:01 ` Andre Hedrick 0 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Gigi Duru @ 2002-10-06 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andre Hedrick; +Cc: linux-kernel We obviously have a very different perception of the term "hacker". I wonder if anyone here shares yours... It was not my intention to offend anyone, but to get your attention on what seems to be a forgotten detail: kernel size. It has nothing to do with who I am or what platform am I working on or those annoying emails nagging you. It is about making Linux better. "Better" may have different meanings for different people. For most "faster" is the closest. You optimize for speed. Adding a second criterion (size) would only increase the value of the code. Keep up the good work, and your ego down, Gigi --- Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> wrote: > > Well given that I get emails for "embedded" space > nagging me about > supporting their stuff yet they will not reveal the > alterations to the GPL > code they borrowed, and moan when the discuss of > paying for consulting on > opensource they have illegally closed. Yeah, I have > zero compasion for > the embedded folks. > > Gee every considered embedding somthing with a > little horsepower? > > So again, if you want change? Submit it. > If you want a consultant? Pay for it. > > Next running around calling people "hackers" is not > the best way to win > friends. Do you think you could sell your embedded > cruft if you told your > customer base, "Gee, I am just a hacker. Please buy > my product." > > Dead thread for me now. > > Cheers, > Andre Hedrick > LAD Storage Consulting Group > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-06 20:20 ` Gigi Duru @ 2002-10-07 2:01 ` Andre Hedrick 0 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2002-10-07 2:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gigi Duru; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Gigi Duru wrote: > We obviously have a very different perception of the > term "hacker". I wonder if anyone here shares yours... Well the obvious goal is to promote addressing the true talent in the list of developers and contributors as something better than a "hacker". Sure most joke in context within the community, but outside all deserve the respect of a quality "developer" on one scale or another. > It was not my intention to offend anyone, but to get > your attention on what seems to be a forgotten detail: > kernel size. Remember the ramping up of features in the beginning is always followed by a slash and burn near the close. > It has nothing to do with who I am or what platform am > I working on or those annoying emails nagging you. It > is about making Linux better. "Better" may have > different meanings for different people. For most > "faster" is the closest. You optimize for speed. > Adding a second criterion (size) would only increase > the value of the code. In the case of current IDE, we bloated to standardize callers and once they were comman to all HBA's they were condensed to a single export function (de-bloat). Then we bloated some more to allow for modular chipsets, the end result may be more bulk if everything is compiled into the kernel, but now the option to deflate the basic kernel and load modules is on the threshold. > Keep up the good work, and your ego down, > Gigi EGO where, that was blown out the sky at the beginning of 2.5 during the foot in acehole process, Linus performed on me as the door whopped me in the backside. The object is to get you to stop complaining and start doing. If you put as much effort into coding as wasted in replies, I be you could be done? The water is warm, just watch out for fins! :-) Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group > --- Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> wrote: > > > > Well given that I get emails for "embedded" space > > nagging me about > > supporting their stuff yet they will not reveal the > > alterations to the GPL > > code they borrowed, and moan when the discuss of > > paying for consulting on > > opensource they have illegally closed. Yeah, I have > > zero compasion for > > the embedded folks. > > > > Gee every considered embedding somthing with a > > little horsepower? > > > > So again, if you want change? Submit it. > > If you want a consultant? Pay for it. > > > > Next running around calling people "hackers" is not > > the best way to win > > friends. Do you think you could sell your embedded > > cruft if you told your > > customer base, "Gee, I am just a hacker. Please buy > > my product." > > > > Dead thread for me now. > > > > Cheers, > > Andre Hedrick > > LAD Storage Consulting Group > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > http://faith.yahoo.com > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 20:52 ` Gigi Duru ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2002-10-06 1:52 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2002-10-06 4:28 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-06 16:53 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-07 16:22 ` Matt Porter 2002-10-06 13:02 ` Ian Molton 4 siblings, 2 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: David S. Miller @ 2002-10-06 4:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: giduru; +Cc: andre, linux-kernel From: Gigi Duru <giduru@yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 13:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Now thats some advice from a kernel hacker... You really don't seem to care too much about embedded, do you? It's not about what I do not do, it's about what YOU do (I'm not talking to you personally, but to the hacker community as a whole). The kernel core didn't jump to 270KB compressed because I didn't do something. Actually, Andre is quite right. I can't name too many embedded Linux folks who haven't customized their kernel in one way or another. And in many respects I think that is going to be difficult to avoid regardless of which free OS you're talking about. Embedded applications tend to have issues which are entirely specific to that embedded project. As such, those are things that do not belong in a general purpose OS. The common areas, like smaller hashtables or whatever, sure put a CONFIG_SMALL_KERNEL option in there and start submitting the one-liners here and there that do it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-06 4:28 ` David S. Miller @ 2002-10-06 16:53 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-06 18:50 ` george anzinger ` (2 more replies) 2002-10-07 16:22 ` Matt Porter 1 sibling, 3 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2002-10-06 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David S. Miller; +Cc: giduru, Andre Hedrick, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 05:28, David S. Miller wrote: > Embedded applications tend to have issues which are entirely specific > to that embedded project. As such, those are things that do not > belong in a general purpose OS. 90% of the embedded Linux problem is not this. Its actually easy to get most of the embedded needs into the base kernel - in fact they overlap the other worlds a lot. Need low power consumption/resource usage - thats S/390 mainframe instances and ibm wristwatches. Need good cpu control - thats desktop/laptop and embedded Need good irq behaviour (pre-empt/low latency) - thats desktop/embedded and it carries on like that. No the big problem is that each embedded vendor is desperately trying to keep their changes out of the mainstream so they can screw each other. In doing so the main people they screw are all their customers. So if the embedded people want 2.6 to be good at embedded they need to get their heads out of their arses and contribute to the mainstream. Otherwise they'll always be chasing a moving ball, and a ball most people are kicking the other way down the field. Its a simple fact of line, if you stick you head up your backside all you get to do is eat shit (and yes there are some embedded people who do contribute but they are sadly a real minority) Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-06 16:53 ` Alan Cox @ 2002-10-06 18:50 ` george anzinger 2002-10-07 10:06 ` simon 2002-10-07 16:15 ` Matt Porter 2 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: george anzinger @ 2002-10-06 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: David S. Miller, giduru, Andre Hedrick, Linux Kernel Mailing List Alan Cox wrote: > > On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 05:28, David S. Miller wrote: > > Embedded applications tend to have issues which are entirely specific > > to that embedded project. As such, those are things that do not > > belong in a general purpose OS. > > 90% of the embedded Linux problem is not this. Its actually easy to get > most of the embedded needs into the base kernel - in fact they overlap > the other worlds a lot. > > Need low power consumption/resource usage - thats S/390 mainframe > instances and ibm wristwatches. > > Need good cpu control - thats desktop/laptop and embedded > > Need good irq behaviour (pre-empt/low latency) - thats desktop/embedded > > and it carries on like that. > > No the big problem is that each embedded vendor is desperately trying to > keep their changes out of the mainstream so they can screw each other. > In doing so the main people they screw are all their customers. > > So if the embedded people want 2.6 to be good at embedded they need to > get their heads out of their arses and contribute to the mainstream. > Otherwise they'll always be chasing a moving ball, and a ball most > people are kicking the other way down the field. Its a simple fact of > line, if you stick you head up your backside all you get to do is eat > shit > > (and yes there are some embedded people who do contribute but they are > sadly a real minority) Uh, thanks, I think. -g > > Alan > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- George Anzinger george@mvista.com High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-06 16:53 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-06 18:50 ` george anzinger @ 2002-10-07 10:06 ` simon 2002-10-07 10:36 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-07 10:55 ` Xavier Bestel 2002-10-07 16:15 ` Matt Porter 2 siblings, 2 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: simon @ 2002-10-07 10:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: linux-kernel Following this thread I am even more disturbed about the embedded Linux world. I do not have any problem with code size, and I would have no problem in paying for some kernel development should I require it. I would ask questions via this mailing list but I would not expect kernel developers to fix problems specific to my environment. I agree that the embedded projects are in need of cpu control, irq behaviour etc. I can also accept that this is the case for a large percentage of embedded projects. I have no real perception of what hardware people use their embedded projects but in my case the hardware is dedicated to the specific task in hand. To get Linux running on the hardware I had to make changes to kernel/lilo code. The hardware has it's own type of interrupt controller, no RTC, it's own type of serial port, no vga etc. These changes are specific to this hardware and are not likely to exist anywhere else. I do not expect kernel developers to maintain this and maybe I am missing the point completely, but why would anyone want me to distribute this code ? More to the point what about the drivers more specific to the task of the hardware ? No one else can run these drivers so how could I expect someone else to maintain them ? The real point of all this is that the kernel developers seem really upset about embedded code which is not released under the GPL. I can understand the desire to keep all of the code free and open. I can also understand how upsetting Linux developers must be in seeing their code being used for other peoples gain, who do not wish to participate in the open source arena. However I can not understand how it would be practical for many organizations to release code under the GPL for specific hardware. The only use I could see for this is other people taking a look to see how the hardware works. This to some companies is too much to give away. Perhaps someone could educate me on this point ? I thought that this was the main problem for embedded projects. If this is no the case I would like to know. So I see the end of embedded Linux not in the code size or speed sense but in the constant battle between organizations wanting to keep their ideas to themselves and the kernel developers wanting these organizations to distribute GPL code. Many Thanks Simon. On 6 Oct 2002, at 17:53, Alan Cox wrote: > On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 05:28, David S. Miller wrote: > > Embedded applications tend to have issues which are entirely specific > > to that embedded project. As such, those are things that do not > > belong in a general purpose OS. > > 90% of the embedded Linux problem is not this. Its actually easy to get > most of the embedded needs into the base kernel - in fact they overlap > the other worlds a lot. > > Need low power consumption/resource usage - thats S/390 mainframe > instances and ibm wristwatches. > > Need good cpu control - thats desktop/laptop and embedded > > Need good irq behaviour (pre-empt/low latency) - thats desktop/embedded > > and it carries on like that. > > No the big problem is that each embedded vendor is desperately trying to > keep their changes out of the mainstream so they can screw each other. > In doing so the main people they screw are all their customers. > > So if the embedded people want 2.6 to be good at embedded they need to > get their heads out of their arses and contribute to the mainstream. > Otherwise they'll always be chasing a moving ball, and a ball most > people are kicking the other way down the field. Its a simple fact of > line, if you stick you head up your backside all you get to do is eat > shit > > (and yes there are some embedded people who do contribute but they are > sadly a real minority) > > Alan > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ __________________________ Simon Haynes - Baydel Phone : 44 (0) 1372 378811 Email : simon@baydel.com __________________________ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 10:06 ` simon @ 2002-10-07 10:36 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-07 11:57 ` Russell King 2002-10-07 17:15 ` simon 2002-10-07 10:55 ` Xavier Bestel 1 sibling, 2 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: David S. Miller @ 2002-10-07 10:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: simon; +Cc: alan, linux-kernel From: "" <simon@baydel.com> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:06:03 +0100 No one else can run these drivers so how could I expect someone else to maintain them ? This is a common misconception. When sweeping API changes are made to fix some bug or whatever, if your driver is in the tree the person making the API change will update your driver or add a comment saying "the new API does this, I couldn't figure out how to do that with your driver, please update" in a comment. You get free work like this just as a side effect of being in the tree. It will also be sanity build checked by lots of people who run the current kernels through a "enable everything" configuration. However I can not understand how it would be practical for many organizations to release code under the GPL for specific hardware. See above. This to some companies is too much to give away. Perhaps someone could educate me on this point ? You talked about an interrupt controller, a serial port, lack of VGA, and lack of RTC on your system... doesn't sound like any ground breaking hardware to me. Franks a lot, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 10:36 ` David S. Miller @ 2002-10-07 11:57 ` Russell King 2002-10-07 12:10 ` Abraham vd Merwe 2002-10-07 16:05 ` Nicolas Pitre 2002-10-07 17:15 ` simon 1 sibling, 2 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Russell King @ 2002-10-07 11:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David S. Miller; +Cc: simon, alan, linux-kernel On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 03:36:44AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > No one else can run these drivers so > how could I expect someone else to maintain them ? > > This is a common misconception. Double that. There are lots of drivers for embedded ARM stuff that should probably be in the tree, but because they typically add architecture specific crap to drivers to modify the IO support the weird and wonderful way the hardware designer has come up with to connect the device. Examples of this are cs89x0.c and smc9192.c. I've tried to coerce people in Alans suggested direction (hiding the architecture specific stuff behind inb and friends) but That Doesn't Work because embedded people will not do this. They'd rather keep their changes external. And thus, they stay external. The conventional "you will do it this way or else your patch will not be merged" approach taken by Alan and others just doesn't bite in the embedded world I'm afraid. Experience has proven this over and over again. And as final proof, the solution taken by two embedded companies is to develop two completely separate cs89x0 driver from the existing one (and then pick one/merge them) rather than fixing stuff in the way suggested by Alan. -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 11:57 ` Russell King @ 2002-10-07 12:10 ` Abraham vd Merwe 2002-10-07 14:12 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-07 16:05 ` Nicolas Pitre 1 sibling, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Abraham vd Merwe @ 2002-10-07 12:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Russell King; +Cc: David S. Miller, simon, alan, linux-kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 905 bytes --] Hi Russell! > And as final proof, the solution taken by two embedded companies is > to develop two completely separate cs89x0 driver from the existing one > (and then pick one/merge them) rather than fixing stuff in the way > suggested by Alan. Hey, the original cs89x0 driver were just too ugly to actually work on - It was much more productive to just start from scratch (; -- Regards Abraham To kick or not to kick... -- Somewhere on IRC, inspired by Shakespeare __________________________________________________________ Abraham vd Merwe - 2d3D, Inc. Device Driver Development, Outsourcing, Embedded Systems Cell: +27 82 565 4451 Snailmail: Tel: +27 21 761 7549 Block C, Aintree Park Fax: +27 21 761 7648 Doncaster Road Email: abraham@2d3d.co.za Kenilworth, 7700 Http: http://www.2d3d.com South Africa [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 12:10 ` Abraham vd Merwe @ 2002-10-07 14:12 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2002-10-07 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Abraham vd Merwe Cc: Russell King, David S. Miller, simon, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 13:10, Abraham vd Merwe wrote: > Hi Russell! > > > And as final proof, the solution taken by two embedded companies is > > to develop two completely separate cs89x0 driver from the existing one > > (and then pick one/merge them) rather than fixing stuff in the way > > suggested by Alan. > > Hey, the original cs89x0 driver were just too ugly to actually work on - > It was much more productive to just start from scratch (; But in that case if you have a better cs89x0 driver that works well and works on multiple platforms, 2.5 is the right time to throw it at the tree and bury the current one ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 11:57 ` Russell King 2002-10-07 12:10 ` Abraham vd Merwe @ 2002-10-07 16:05 ` Nicolas Pitre 2002-10-07 16:02 ` David S. Miller 1 sibling, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2002-10-07 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Russell King; +Cc: David S. Miller, simon, alan, lkml On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Russell King wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 03:36:44AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > No one else can run these drivers so > > how could I expect someone else to maintain them ? > > > > This is a common misconception. > > Double that. There are lots of drivers for embedded ARM stuff that > should probably be in the tree, but because they typically add > architecture specific crap to drivers to modify the IO support > the weird and wonderful way the hardware designer has come up with > to connect the device. Examples of this are cs89x0.c and smc9192.c. > > I've tried to coerce people in Alans suggested direction (hiding > the architecture specific stuff behind inb and friends) but That > Doesn't Work because embedded people will not do this. And embedded people won't do that for many reasons: 1) It's unwise to bloat every use of inb() and friends through out the kernel just because a single driver needs a special fixup. 2) Not inlining inb() and friend reduce the bloat but then you further impact performances on CPUs which are generally many order of magnitude slower than current desktop machines. 3) Getting the best code efficiency out of inb() and friends is therefore premordial on those platforms which are sensitive to code performance to achieve maximum bandwidth and power efficiency. Remember that most of embedded platforms where the SMC91C96 is used to pick up that example aren't able to accomodate any form of DMA à la PCI most of the time. So even with the current situation where inb() and friends are tweaked directly in each individual drivers I often see over 50% CPU usage in kernel space just by copying files over NFS. Going with Alan's suggestion as you mentioned many times on linux-arm-kernel is just not acceptable. There really should be a way to abstract things so the proper fixup is done once at compilation time rather than across the board for every inb() access at run time. I'm sure those who take care of abstracting the code for SMP capabilities so it nicely becomes a no op on UP at compilation time understand this issue pretty well. This should be the same for IO macros with embedded systems. Nicolas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 16:05 ` Nicolas Pitre @ 2002-10-07 16:02 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-07 16:20 ` Benjamin LaHaise ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: David S. Miller @ 2002-10-07 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: nico; +Cc: rmk, simon, alan, linux-kernel From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:05:16 -0400 (EDT) 2) Not inlining inb() and friend reduce the bloat but then you further impact performances on CPUs which are generally many order of magnitude slower than current desktop machines. I don't buy this one. You are saying that the overhead of a procedure call is larger than the overhead of going out over the I/O bus to touch a device? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 16:02 ` David S. Miller @ 2002-10-07 16:20 ` Benjamin LaHaise 2002-10-07 16:38 ` Nicolas Pitre 2002-10-07 16:53 ` Mark Mielke 2 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Benjamin LaHaise @ 2002-10-07 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David S. Miller; +Cc: nico, rmk, simon, alan, linux-kernel On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 09:02:33AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > I don't buy this one. You are saying that the overhead of a procedure > call is larger than the overhead of going out over the I/O bus to > touch a device? On slow CPUs like embedded 386es, yup. Remember, they don't always have a cache. -ben -- GMS rules. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 16:02 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-07 16:20 ` Benjamin LaHaise @ 2002-10-07 16:38 ` Nicolas Pitre 2002-10-07 16:53 ` Mark Mielke 2 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2002-10-07 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David S. Miller; +Cc: Russell King, simon, alan, lkml On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> > Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:05:16 -0400 (EDT) > > 2) Not inlining inb() and friend reduce the bloat but then you further > impact performances on CPUs which are generally many order of magnitude > slower than current desktop machines. > > I don't buy this one. You are saying that the overhead of a procedure > call is larger than the overhead of going out over the I/O bus to > touch a device? Of course it is! Not only the procedure call prevents code optimisations like immediate constants for opcode arguments and pushes more registers to the stack, but you're then wasting many CPU cycles that would have been much useful to fetch data from the peripheral's fifo. Remember we are talking about "embedded" platforms which the majority are using small CPUs where the IO bus is often on a clock which is tightly coupled to the CPU core clock. Extra CPU cycles wasted on function call prologs is often enough to affect throughput significantly. Nicolas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 16:02 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-07 16:20 ` Benjamin LaHaise 2002-10-07 16:38 ` Nicolas Pitre @ 2002-10-07 16:53 ` Mark Mielke 2002-10-07 17:45 ` Nicolas Pitre 2 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Mark Mielke @ 2002-10-07 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David S. Miller; +Cc: nico, rmk, simon, alan, linux-kernel On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 09:02:33AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> > Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:05:16 -0400 (EDT) > 2) Not inlining inb() and friend reduce the bloat but then you further > impact performances on CPUs which are generally many order of > magnitude slower than current desktop machines. > I don't buy this one. You are saying that the overhead of a procedure > call is larger than the overhead of going out over the I/O bus to > touch a device? I think the key phrase is 'further impact'. If anything, the procedure call increases latency. Although... I don't see why CONFIG_TINY wouldn't be able to decide whether inb() should be inlined or not... mark -- mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 16:53 ` Mark Mielke @ 2002-10-07 17:45 ` Nicolas Pitre 2002-10-07 18:11 ` Richard B. Johnson ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Nicolas Pitre @ 2002-10-07 17:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mielke; +Cc: David S. Miller, Russell King, simon, alan, lkml On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Mark Mielke wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 09:02:33AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> > > Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:05:16 -0400 (EDT) > > 2) Not inlining inb() and friend reduce the bloat but then you further > > impact performances on CPUs which are generally many order of > > magnitude slower than current desktop machines. > > I don't buy this one. You are saying that the overhead of a procedure > > call is larger than the overhead of going out over the I/O bus to > > touch a device? > > I think the key phrase is 'further impact'. > > If anything, the procedure call increases latency. > > Although... I don't see why CONFIG_TINY wouldn't be able to decide whether > inb() should be inlined or not... Please don't mix up the issues. The problems with inb() and friends as it stands in the embedded world right now as to do with code cleanness not kernel image bloat. Nothing to be solved with CONFIG_TINY. Please let's keep those issues separate. Here's the IO macro issue: On some embedded platforms the IO bus is only 8 bit wide or only 16 bit wide, or address lines are shifted so registers offsets are not the same, etc. All this because embedded platforms are often using standard ISA peripheral chipsets since they can be easily glued to any kind of bare buses or static memory banks. The nice thing here is the fact that only by modifying inb() and friends you can reuse most current kernel drivers without further modifications. However the modifs to inb() are often different whether the peripheral in question is wired to a static memory bank, to the PCMCIA space or onto some expansion board via a CPLD or other weirdness some hardware designers are pleased to come with. Hence no global inb() and friend tweaking is possible without some performance hit by using a runtime fixup based on the address passed to them. We therefore end up with something that looks like this in each drivers for which a fixup is needed: #ifdef CONFIG_ASSABET_NEPONSET /* * These functions allow us to handle IO addressing as we wish - this * ethernet controller can be connected to a variety of busses. Some * busses do not support 16 bit or 32 bit transfers. --rmk */ static inline u8 smc_inb(u_int base, u_int reg) { u_int port = base + reg * 4; return readb(port); } static inline u16 smc_inw(u_int base, u_int reg) { u_int port = base + reg * 4; return readb(port) | readb(port + 4) << 8; } static inline void smc_outb(u8 val, u_int base, u_int reg) { u_int port = base + reg * 4; writeb(val, port); } static inline void smc_outw(u16 val, u_int base, u_int reg) { u_int port = base + reg * 4; writeb(val, port); writeb(val >> 8, port + 4); } #endif As you can see such code duplicated multiple times for all bus arrangements in existence out there is just not pretty and was refused by Alan. We lack a global lightweight IO abstraction to nicely override the default IO macros for individual drivers at compile time to fix that problem optimally and keep the driver proper clean. Nicolas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 17:45 ` Nicolas Pitre @ 2002-10-07 18:11 ` Richard B. Johnson 2002-10-07 18:54 ` george anzinger ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Richard B. Johnson @ 2002-10-07 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Mark Mielke, David S. Miller, Russell King, simon, alan, lkml On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Mark Mielke wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 09:02:33AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > > From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> > > > Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:05:16 -0400 (EDT) > > > 2) Not inlining inb() and friend reduce the bloat but then you further > > > impact performances on CPUs which are generally many order of > > > magnitude slower than current desktop machines. > > > I don't buy this one. You are saying that the overhead of a procedure > > > call is larger than the overhead of going out over the I/O bus to > > > touch a device? > > > > I think the key phrase is 'further impact'. > > > > If anything, the procedure call increases latency. > > > > Although... I don't see why CONFIG_TINY wouldn't be able to decide whether > > inb() should be inlined or not... > > Please don't mix up the issues. > > The problems with inb() and friends as it stands in the embedded world right > now as to do with code cleanness not kernel image bloat. Nothing to be > solved with CONFIG_TINY. Please let's keep those issues separate. > > Here's the IO macro issue: On some embedded platforms the IO bus is only 8 > bit wide or only 16 bit wide, or address lines are shifted so registers > offsets are not the same, etc. All this because embedded platforms are > often using standard ISA peripheral chipsets since they can be easily glued > to any kind of bare buses or static memory banks. > > The nice thing here is the fact that only by modifying inb() and friends you > can reuse most current kernel drivers without further modifications. > However the modifs to inb() are often different whether the peripheral in > question is wired to a static memory bank, to the PCMCIA space or onto some > expansion board via a CPLD or other weirdness some hardware designers are > pleased to come with. Hence no global inb() and friend tweaking is possible > without some performance hit by using a runtime fixup based on the address > passed to them. > > We therefore end up with something that looks like this in each drivers for > which a fixup is needed: > > #ifdef CONFIG_ASSABET_NEPONSET > > /* > * These functions allow us to handle IO addressing as we wish - this > * ethernet controller can be connected to a variety of busses. Some > * busses do not support 16 bit or 32 bit transfers. --rmk > */ > static inline u8 smc_inb(u_int base, u_int reg) > { > u_int port = base + reg * 4; > > return readb(port); > } > > static inline u16 smc_inw(u_int base, u_int reg) > { > u_int port = base + reg * 4; > > return readb(port) | readb(port + 4) << 8; > } > > static inline void smc_outb(u8 val, u_int base, u_int reg) > { > u_int port = base + reg * 4; > > writeb(val, port); > } > > static inline void smc_outw(u16 val, u_int base, u_int reg) > { > u_int port = base + reg * 4; > > writeb(val, port); > writeb(val >> 8, port + 4); > } > > #endif > > As you can see such code duplicated multiple times for all bus arrangements > in existence out there is just not pretty and was refused by Alan. We lack > a global lightweight IO abstraction to nicely override the default IO macros > for individual drivers at compile time to fix that problem optimally and > keep the driver proper clean. > > > Nicolas If linux, with no modifications, can be booted on your hardware, then you don't need any kernel modifications. You can do all your special I/O through your own modules using whatever techniques you want since your modules are for your system, therefore by definition, not portable. This is the method we used here. Also, since any modules are designed to interface with our proprietary hardware, any customer can get the source-code because its pretty worthless without the proprietary hardware. So, we don't have a problem with GPL or anything like that. If you buy the box, you get anything you want without an NDA. The only thing we keep under our belt is the BIOS that we wrote. Since this effectively builds a pretty dumb hunk of coal into an AT Class machine, we don't give that away as a freebee. We don't waste any I/O space, the NVRAM used as the data-source of a virtual floppy drive is accessed through a very small 0x1000 window. We use this window to burn new PROMS and even to upgrade the BIOS. That virtual floppy drive 'boots' Linux using LILO and friends. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips). The US military has given us many words, FUBAR, SNAFU, now ENRON. Yes, top management were graduates of West Point and Annapolis. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 17:45 ` Nicolas Pitre 2002-10-07 18:11 ` Richard B. Johnson @ 2002-10-07 18:54 ` george anzinger 2002-10-07 19:11 ` Russell King 2002-10-12 10:08 ` Richard Zidlicky 2002-10-14 12:26 ` Richard Zidlicky 3 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: george anzinger @ 2002-10-07 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Mark Mielke, David S. Miller, Russell King, simon, alan, lkml Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Mark Mielke wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 09:02:33AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > > From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> > > > Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 12:05:16 -0400 (EDT) > > > 2) Not inlining inb() and friend reduce the bloat but then you further > > > impact performances on CPUs which are generally many order of > > > magnitude slower than current desktop machines. > > > I don't buy this one. You are saying that the overhead of a procedure > > > call is larger than the overhead of going out over the I/O bus to > > > touch a device? > > > > I think the key phrase is 'further impact'. > > > > If anything, the procedure call increases latency. > > > > Although... I don't see why CONFIG_TINY wouldn't be able to decide whether > > inb() should be inlined or not... > > Please don't mix up the issues. > > The problems with inb() and friends as it stands in the embedded world right > now as to do with code cleanness not kernel image bloat. Nothing to be > solved with CONFIG_TINY. Please let's keep those issues separate. > > Here's the IO macro issue: On some embedded platforms the IO bus is only 8 > bit wide or only 16 bit wide, or address lines are shifted so registers > offsets are not the same, etc. All this because embedded platforms are > often using standard ISA peripheral chipsets since they can be easily glued > to any kind of bare buses or static memory banks. > > The nice thing here is the fact that only by modifying inb() and friends you > can reuse most current kernel drivers without further modifications. > However the modifs to inb() are often different whether the peripheral in > question is wired to a static memory bank, to the PCMCIA space or onto some > expansion board via a CPLD or other weirdness some hardware designers are > pleased to come with. Hence no global inb() and friend tweaking is possible > without some performance hit by using a runtime fixup based on the address > passed to them. > > We therefore end up with something that looks like this in each drivers for > which a fixup is needed: > > #ifdef CONFIG_ASSABET_NEPONSET > > /* > * These functions allow us to handle IO addressing as we wish - this > * ethernet controller can be connected to a variety of busses. Some > * busses do not support 16 bit or 32 bit transfers. --rmk > */ > static inline u8 smc_inb(u_int base, u_int reg) > { > u_int port = base + reg * 4; > > return readb(port); > } > > static inline u16 smc_inw(u_int base, u_int reg) > { > u_int port = base + reg * 4; > > return readb(port) | readb(port + 4) << 8; > } > > static inline void smc_outb(u8 val, u_int base, u_int reg) > { > u_int port = base + reg * 4; > > writeb(val, port); > } > > static inline void smc_outw(u16 val, u_int base, u_int reg) > { > u_int port = base + reg * 4; > > writeb(val, port); > writeb(val >> 8, port + 4); > } > > #endif > > As you can see such code duplicated multiple times for all bus arrangements > in existence out there is just not pretty and was refused by Alan. We lack > a global lightweight IO abstraction to nicely override the default IO macros > for individual drivers at compile time to fix that problem optimally and > keep the driver proper clean. Uh, what about stuff like this (from tulip.h): #ifndef USE_IO_OPS #undef inb #undef inw #undef inl #undef outb #undef outw #undef outl #define inb(addr) readb((void*)(addr)) #define inw(addr) readw((void*)(addr)) #define inl(addr) readl((void*)(addr)) #define outb(val,addr) writeb((val), (void*)(addr)) #define outw(val,addr) writew((val), (void*)(addr)) #define outl(val,addr) writel((val), (void*)(addr)) #endif /* !USE_IO_OPS */ -- George Anzinger george@mvista.com High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 18:54 ` george anzinger @ 2002-10-07 19:11 ` Russell King 2002-10-07 20:05 ` Ben Greear 0 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Russell King @ 2002-10-07 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: george anzinger Cc: Nicolas Pitre, Mark Mielke, David S. Miller, simon, alan, lkml On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 11:54:54AM -0700, george anzinger wrote: > Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > #ifdef CONFIG_ASSABET_NEPONSET > > > > /* > > * These functions allow us to handle IO addressing as we wish - this > > * ethernet controller can be connected to a variety of busses. Some > > * busses do not support 16 bit or 32 bit transfers. --rmk > > */ > > static inline u8 smc_inb(u_int base, u_int reg) > > { > > u_int port = base + reg * 4; > > > > return readb(port); > > } > > > > static inline u16 smc_inw(u_int base, u_int reg) > > { > > u_int port = base + reg * 4; > > > > return readb(port) | readb(port + 4) << 8; > > } > > > > static inline void smc_outb(u8 val, u_int base, u_int reg) > > { > > u_int port = base + reg * 4; > > > > writeb(val, port); > > } > > > > static inline void smc_outw(u16 val, u_int base, u_int reg) > > { > > u_int port = base + reg * 4; > > > > writeb(val, port); > > writeb(val >> 8, port + 4); > > } > > > > #endif > > > > As you can see such code duplicated multiple times for all bus arrangements > > in existence out there is just not pretty and was refused by Alan. We lack > > a global lightweight IO abstraction to nicely override the default IO macros > > for individual drivers at compile time to fix that problem optimally and > > keep the driver proper clean. > > Uh, what about stuff like this (from tulip.h): > > #ifndef USE_IO_OPS > #undef inb > #undef inw > #undef inl > #undef outb > #undef outw > #undef outl > #define inb(addr) readb((void*)(addr)) > #define inw(addr) readw((void*)(addr)) > #define inl(addr) readl((void*)(addr)) > #define outb(val,addr) writeb((val), (void*)(addr)) > #define outw(val,addr) writew((val), (void*)(addr)) > #define outl(val,addr) writel((val), (void*)(addr)) > #endif /* !USE_IO_OPS */ No, you don't quite get it. The above code Nico pasted supports _one_ ARM machine type only (the one I have here, hence why its in my tree) where the SMC chip is configured to be in 8-bit mode. We also have the same device connected in 16-bit mode on other machines, with different ways to set it up: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/viewpatch.php?id=734/1 Now imagine the case when you have 100 different machine types, all different, using this device where each hardware designer has decided to connect the chip up differently. Is putting this crud into drivers going to be maintainable? No. -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 19:11 ` Russell King @ 2002-10-07 20:05 ` Ben Greear 0 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Ben Greear @ 2002-10-07 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Russell King Cc: george anzinger, Nicolas Pitre, Mark Mielke, David S. Miller, simon, alan, lkml Russell King wrote: > Now imagine the case when you have 100 different machine types, all > different, using this device where each hardware designer has decided to > connect the chip up differently. > > Is putting this crud into drivers going to be maintainable? No. I'm not sure which is worse: A driver that is hard to maintain, or one that is completely broken on some architectures, even though numerous people keep re-inventing the fix. Personally, I'd rather have a hacked up driver that works, but I'm sure others have other opinions! Ben -- Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> <Ben_Greear AT excite.com> President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 17:45 ` Nicolas Pitre 2002-10-07 18:11 ` Richard B. Johnson 2002-10-07 18:54 ` george anzinger @ 2002-10-12 10:08 ` Richard Zidlicky 2002-10-14 12:26 ` Richard Zidlicky 3 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Richard Zidlicky @ 2002-10-12 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Mark Mielke, David S. Miller, Russell King, simon, alan, lkml On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 01:45:35PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > Here's the IO macro issue: On some embedded platforms the IO bus is only 8 > bit wide or only 16 bit wide, or address lines are shifted so registers > offsets are not the same, etc. All this because embedded platforms are > often using standard ISA peripheral chipsets since they can be easily glued > to any kind of bare buses or static memory banks. > > The nice thing here is the fact that only by modifying inb() and friends you > can reuse most current kernel drivers without further modifications. > However the modifs to inb() are often different whether the peripheral in > question is wired to a static memory bank, to the PCMCIA space or onto some > expansion board via a CPLD or other weirdness some hardware designers are > pleased to come with. Hence no global inb() and friend tweaking is possible > without some performance hit by using a runtime fixup based on the address > passed to them. we have all this problems on m68k as well (except that our speed constraints aren't so terribly strict), don't give up too quickly. A possible solution is to generate multiple object file from the same source using a different set of defines for each one. The kbuild system can already handle it using the CFLAGS_$@ rule and asm/io.h can then select the appropriate macros for inb etc. Where it starts to be more interesting is when there are module interdependecies (like ne.c and e8390.c) or all the object files are to be be linked into kernel. Perhaps EXPORT_SYMBOL() and INIT_MODULE() could be tweaked to mangle the names according to some special define. Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 17:45 ` Nicolas Pitre ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2002-10-12 10:08 ` Richard Zidlicky @ 2002-10-14 12:26 ` Richard Zidlicky 3 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Richard Zidlicky @ 2002-10-14 12:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Mark Mielke, David S. Miller, Russell King, simon, alan, lkml On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 01:45:35PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > Here's the IO macro issue: On some embedded platforms the IO bus is only 8 > bit wide or only 16 bit wide, or address lines are shifted so registers > offsets are not the same, etc. All this because embedded platforms are > often using standard ISA peripheral chipsets since they can be easily glued > to any kind of bare buses or static memory banks. > > The nice thing here is the fact that only by modifying inb() and friends you > can reuse most current kernel drivers without further modifications. > However the modifs to inb() are often different whether the peripheral in > question is wired to a static memory bank, to the PCMCIA space or onto some > expansion board via a CPLD or other weirdness some hardware designers are > pleased to come with. Hence no global inb() and friend tweaking is possible > without some performance hit by using a runtime fixup based on the address > passed to them. we have all this problems on m68k as well (except that our speed constraints aren't so terribly strict), don't give up too quickly. A possible solution is to generate multiple object file from the same source using a different set of defines for each one. The kbuild system can already handle it using the CFLAGS_$@ rule and asm/io.h can then select the appropriate macros for inb etc. Where it starts to be more interesting is when there are module interdependecies (like ne.c and e8390.c) or all the object files are to be be linked into kernel. Perhaps EXPORT_SYMBOL() and INIT_MODULE() could be tweaked to mangle the names according to some special define. Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 10:36 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-07 11:57 ` Russell King @ 2002-10-07 17:15 ` simon 2002-10-07 17:24 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-07 20:22 ` Alan Cox 1 sibling, 2 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: simon @ 2002-10-07 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David S. Miller; +Cc: linux-kernel David, Thanks for the reply. I sense as in many emails regarding this a sense of frustration and this is a concern. I am writing to the list to try and learn and because I value the experiences of other people. As far as my hardware is concerned there is much more to it than a serial port and an interupt controller. What I was trying to explain was that I would not mind making my code available for these kernel changes. Although I don't understand why anyone would want it. Apart from API changes, why do this ? The kernel is not easily or frequently changed on this type of system. It would bloat the kernel and I would expect to have to address problems of this nature myself. However I would not like to make code available for the more specialised hardware. Thanks Simon. <color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>On 7 Oct 2002, at 3:36, David S. Miller wrote: <color><param>7F00,0000,0000</param>> From: "" <<simon@baydel.com> > Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:06:03 +0100 > > No one else can run these drivers so > how could I expect someone else to maintain them ? > > This is a common misconception. When sweeping API changes > are made to fix some bug or whatever, if your driver is in > the tree the person making the API change will update your > driver or add a comment saying "the new API does this, I > couldn't figure out how to do that with your driver, please > update" in a comment. > > You get free work like this just as a side effect of being > in the tree. > > It will also be sanity build checked by lots of people who > run the current kernels through a "enable everything" configuration. > > However I can not understand how it would be practical for many > organizations to release code under the GPL for specific hardware. > > See above. > > This to some companies is too much to give > away. Perhaps someone could educate me on this point ? > > You talked about an interrupt controller, a serial port, lack of VGA, > and lack of RTC on your system... doesn't sound like any ground > breaking hardware to me. > > Franks a lot, > David S. Miller > davem@redhat.com <nofill> __________________________ Simon Haynes - Baydel Phone : 44 (0) 1372 378811 Email : simon@baydel.com __________________________ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 17:15 ` simon @ 2002-10-07 17:24 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-07 20:22 ` Alan Cox 1 sibling, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: David S. Miller @ 2002-10-07 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: simon; +Cc: linux-kernel From: "" <simon@baydel.com> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:15:18 +0100 Although I don't understand why anyone would want it. Apart from API changes, why do this ? Let's say your driver is the only one that takes advantage of argument X in some major API, and we decided to delete that argument. If your driver is in the tree we wouldn't delete the argument and therefore your driver wouldn't break. You may not have any desire to upgrade kernels today. But 6 months, or a year or two down the road you may and the accumulated ABI changes that you have to cope with in each and every one of your drivers will be large. Why not get this maintainence done for you for free instead of losing a week or two of trying to do it yourself? Perhaps for job security? :-) At least that would be an honest reason. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 17:15 ` simon 2002-10-07 17:24 ` David S. Miller @ 2002-10-07 20:22 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-07 22:22 ` Christer Weinigel 2002-10-08 10:11 ` simon 1 sibling, 2 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2002-10-07 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: simon; +Cc: David S. Miller, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 18:15, simon@baydel.com wrote: > a serial port and an interupt controller. What I was trying to explain > was that I would not mind making my code available for these > kernel changes. Although I don't understand why anyone would > want it. Apart from API changes, why do this ? The kernel is not > easily or frequently changed on this type of system. It would bloat > the kernel and I would expect to have to address problems of this > nature myself. However I would not like to make code available for > the more specialised hardware. That depends how specialized the hardware actually is. I think I've see six different non free implementations of 68360 sync serial code around all proprietary for example. Also my original comments were much more aimed at the core stuff. People who made existing and especially core stuff smaller could send the stuff out. Several of us want to compile a CONFIG_TINY option, and suprisingly enough small is good on high end boxes. My L1 cache is 8 times faster than my L2 cache is 7 times faster than my memory. Or to put it another way, going to main memory costs me maybe 100 instructions. My Athlon thinks small is good too! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 20:22 ` Alan Cox @ 2002-10-07 22:22 ` Christer Weinigel 2002-10-07 22:52 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-08 10:11 ` simon 1 sibling, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Christer Weinigel @ 2002-10-07 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: simon, David S. Miller, Linux Kernel Mailing List Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes: > Also my original comments were much more aimed at the core stuff. People > who made existing and especially core stuff smaller could send the stuff > out. Several of us want to compile a CONFIG_TINY option, and suprisingly > enough small is good on high end boxes. My L1 cache is 8 times faster > than my L2 cache is 7 times faster than my memory. Or to put it another > way, going to main memory costs me maybe 100 instructions. > > My Athlon thinks small is good too! Regarding this, has anyone been thinking of splitting printk into a bunch of macros such as: #ifndef CONFIG_TINY #define printk_debug(xxx...) printk(KERN_DEBUG, xxx...) #define printk_info(xxx...) printk(KERN_INFO, xx...) #else #define printk_debug(xxx...) do { } while (0) #define printk_info(xxx...) do { } while (0) #endif and so on? This way debug messages could very simply be compiled to oblivion when CONFIG_TINY is enabled. /Christer -- "Just how much can I get away with and still go to heaven?" Freelance consultant specializing in device driver programming for Linux Christer Weinigel <christer@weinigel.se> http://www.weinigel.se ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 22:22 ` Christer Weinigel @ 2002-10-07 22:52 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-07 22:56 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2002-10-09 11:19 ` Jamie Lokier 0 siblings, 2 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2002-10-07 22:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Christer Weinigel; +Cc: simon, David S. Miller, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 23:22, Christer Weinigel wrote: > #define printk_debug(xxx...) printk(KERN_DEBUG, xxx...) > #define printk_info(xxx...) printk(KERN_INFO, xx...) > #else > #define printk_debug(xxx...) do { } while (0) > #define printk_info(xxx...) do { } while (0) That might make a lot of sense. The macros in question would need a bit of hand checking for side effects in calls but yes this is the kind of thing that can be good ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 22:52 ` Alan Cox @ 2002-10-07 22:56 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2002-10-09 11:19 ` Jamie Lokier 1 sibling, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2002-10-07 22:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Christer Weinigel, simon, David S. Miller, Linux Kernel Mailing List Em Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 11:52:18PM +0100, Alan Cox escreveu: > On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 23:22, Christer Weinigel wrote: > > #define printk_debug(xxx...) printk(KERN_DEBUG, xxx...) > > #define printk_info(xxx...) printk(KERN_INFO, xx...) > > #else > > #define printk_debug(xxx...) do { } while (0) > > #define printk_info(xxx...) do { } while (0) > > That might make a lot of sense. The macros in question would need a bit > of hand checking for side effects in calls but yes this is the kind of > thing that can be good Humm, dprintk is perhaps the most widely used of this kind of stuff, i.e. debug only printks that should be disabled when in production, standardising on what is common practice and adding a iprintk could be something we should consider. - Arnaldo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 22:52 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-07 22:56 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2002-10-09 11:19 ` Jamie Lokier 1 sibling, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Jamie Lokier @ 2002-10-09 11:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Christer Weinigel, simon, David S. Miller, Linux Kernel Mailing List Alan Cox wrote: > On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 23:22, Christer Weinigel wrote: > > #define printk_debug(xxx...) printk(KERN_DEBUG, xxx...) > > #define printk_info(xxx...) printk(KERN_INFO, xx...) > > #else > > #define printk_debug(xxx...) do { } while (0) > > #define printk_info(xxx...) do { } while (0) > > That might make a lot of sense. The macros in question would need a bit > of hand checking for side effects in calls but yes this is the kind of > thing that can be good You can write the macros so the side effects are still executed if you prefer. Untested: #define printk_debug(xxx...) do { (void) (xxx ## , 0); } while (0) -- Jamie ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 20:22 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-07 22:22 ` Christer Weinigel @ 2002-10-08 10:11 ` simon 2002-10-08 11:11 ` jbradford ` (4 more replies) 1 sibling, 5 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: simon @ 2002-10-08 10:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: linux-kernel On 7 Oct 2002, at 21:22, Alan Cox wrote: > On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 18:15, simon@baydel.com wrote: > > a serial port and an interupt controller. What I was trying to explain > > was that I would not mind making my code available for these > > kernel changes. Although I don't understand why anyone would > > want it. Apart from API changes, why do this ? The kernel is not > > easily or frequently changed on this type of system. It would bloat > > the kernel and I would expect to have to address problems of this > > nature myself. However I would not like to make code available for > > the more specialised hardware. > > That depends how specialized the hardware actually is. I think I've see > six different non free implementations of 68360 sync serial code around > all proprietary for example. > The UART and Interrupt controllers in question are built into a gate array. I can't see how any external or parts from other vendors would be compatible. To get the board to boot Linux I have to modify the kernel and lilo. I understand that under the GPL rules I would have to make this code available. I am willing to do this but I don't see the point. There is also more specialized hardware for which I have written modules. Although there appears to be some unwritten rule about releasing objects, I believe that the GPL rules state that these modules must conform to the GPL also, as they contain header files. I cannot see how any module can not contain Linux headers or headers derived from Linux headers if it is to be loaded on a Linux kernel. These modules again drive gate array hardware for which nobody else will ever have a compatible. Although I would dearly love to use Linux as the platform for my project I feel I cannot release this code under the GPL. This is my dilemma and I am sure it is shared by others. For this reason I cannot see how anything but an embedded PC with applications or a perhaps a very simple hardware device could be considered as an opportunity for embedded Linux. I have based these thoughts on my experiences so far. If you feel I have drawn an incorrect conclusion I would be grateful for your input. Many Thanks Simon. > Also my original comments were much more aimed at the core stuff. People > who made existing and especially core stuff smaller could send the stuff > out. Several of us want to compile a CONFIG_TINY option, and suprisingly > enough small is good on high end boxes. My L1 cache is 8 times faster > than my L2 cache is 7 times faster than my memory. Or to put it another > way, going to main memory costs me maybe 100 instructions. > > My Athlon thinks small is good too! > __________________________ Simon Haynes - Baydel Phone : 44 (0) 1372 378811 Email : simon@baydel.com __________________________ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-08 10:11 ` simon @ 2002-10-08 11:11 ` jbradford 2002-10-08 11:53 ` Richard B. Johnson 2002-10-08 11:25 ` Vojtech Pavlik ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: jbradford @ 2002-10-08 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: simon; +Cc: alan, linux-kernel > These modules again drive gate array hardware for which nobody > else will ever have a compatible. Although I would dearly love to > use Linux as the platform for my project I feel I cannot release this > code under the GPL. That just doesn't make sense. If nobody else will ever have a compatible piece of hardware, I don't see why you wouldn't want to release the driver code under the GPL. _Unless_ you fear that somebody will derive your hardware design from the code. Is that what you're worried about? John. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-08 11:11 ` jbradford @ 2002-10-08 11:53 ` Richard B. Johnson 2002-10-08 12:09 ` jbradford 0 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Richard B. Johnson @ 2002-10-08 11:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: jbradford; +Cc: simon, alan, linux-kernel On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote: > > These modules again drive gate array hardware for which nobody > > else will ever have a compatible. Although I would dearly love to > > use Linux as the platform for my project I feel I cannot release this > > code under the GPL. > > That just doesn't make sense. If nobody else will ever have a > compatible piece of hardware, I don't see why you wouldn't want to > release the driver code under the GPL. > > _Unless_ you fear that somebody will derive your hardware design from > the code. Is that what you're worried about? > > John. Maybe he's afraid that customers will see that the hardware design is absolute garbage with thousands of defective-hardware-work-arounds in software. If so, don't worry! I don't think there is a piece of digital hardware remaining on the planet that doesn't require software playing nurse-maid. And everybody knows that if a decision has to be made to re-do a PWB at $150,000 a pop, or to invent some software work-arounds, the work-arounds will always win. Besides, software is "free". Once it's done and the software engineers laid-off, you just clone in over-and-over again. Ask any production manager. I know of a company that has WOM (Write Only Memory) right in the middle of some RAM address space. Guess what? It's memory-mapped and 'owned' by some sleeping giant! Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips). The US military has given us many words, FUBAR, SNAFU, now ENRON. Yes, top management were graduates of West Point and Annapolis. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-08 11:53 ` Richard B. Johnson @ 2002-10-08 12:09 ` jbradford 0 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: jbradford @ 2002-10-08 12:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: root; +Cc: simon, alan, linux-kernel > > > These modules again drive gate array hardware for which nobody > > > else will ever have a compatible. Although I would dearly love to > > > use Linux as the platform for my project I feel I cannot release this > > > code under the GPL. > > > > That just doesn't make sense. If nobody else will ever have a > > compatible piece of hardware, I don't see why you wouldn't want to > > release the driver code under the GPL. > > > > _Unless_ you fear that somebody will derive your hardware design from > > the code. Is that what you're worried about? > > > > John. > > Maybe he's afraid that customers will see that the hardware design is > absolute garbage with thousands of defective-hardware-work-arounds in > software. If so, don't worry! Exactly, the customers are not going to read the source code and refuse to buy his product. After all, people buy software modems :-). > I know of a company that has WOM (Write Only Memory) right in the > middle of some RAM address space. Guess what? It's memory-mapped and > 'owned' by some sleeping giant! Have you seen the spec sheet for a WOM that was published, (I think on 1st April), a long time ago? It had specs like VDD 0v +/- 2% :-) John. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-08 10:11 ` simon 2002-10-08 11:11 ` jbradford @ 2002-10-08 11:25 ` Vojtech Pavlik 2002-10-08 11:25 ` Alan Cox ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Vojtech Pavlik @ 2002-10-08 11:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: simon; +Cc: Alan Cox, linux-kernel On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 11:11:44AM +0100, simon@baydel.com wrote: > The UART and Interrupt controllers in question are built into a gate > array. I can't see how any external or parts from other vendors > would be compatible. To get the board to boot Linux I have to > modify the kernel and lilo. I understand that under the GPL rules I > would have to make this code available. I am willing to do this but I > don't see the point. > > There is also more specialized hardware for which I have written > modules. Although there appears to be some unwritten rule about > releasing objects, I believe that the GPL rules state that these > modules must conform to the GPL also, as they contain header > files. I cannot see how any module can not contain Linux headers > or headers derived from Linux headers if it is to be loaded on a > Linux kernel. > > These modules again drive gate array hardware for which nobody > else will ever have a compatible. Although I would dearly love to > use Linux as the platform for my project I feel I cannot release this > code under the GPL. > > This is my dilemma and I am sure it is shared by others. For this > reason I cannot see how anything but an embedded PC with > applications or a perhaps a very simple hardware device could be > considered as an opportunity for embedded Linux. > > I have based these thoughts on my experiences so far. If you feel I > have drawn an incorrect conclusion I would be grateful for your > input. Its as easy as: If you want to distribute the binaries, you have to distribute the source freely. If you don't want to distribute the binaries nor the code and keep your project private, you don't have to, under the GPL. Regarding binary-only kernel modules - well, it's possible, but don't do that. -- Vojtech Pavlik SuSE Labs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-08 10:11 ` simon 2002-10-08 11:11 ` jbradford 2002-10-08 11:25 ` Vojtech Pavlik @ 2002-10-08 11:25 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-08 20:04 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-08 11:27 ` jw schultz 2002-10-08 15:52 ` David Lang 4 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2002-10-08 11:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: simon; +Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 11:11, simon@baydel.com wrote: > This is my dilemma and I am sure it is shared by others. For this > reason I cannot see how anything but an embedded PC with > applications or a perhaps a very simple hardware device could be > considered as an opportunity for embedded Linux. Certainly the sort of things I was talking about didnt extend to unique gate arrays for one internal board. [BTW that also came up in the large computing world too - we never merged a driver for the AP-1000+ fddi because there were only two cards on the planet 8)] Alan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-08 11:25 ` Alan Cox @ 2002-10-08 20:04 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-08 22:53 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: David S. Miller @ 2002-10-08 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: alan; +Cc: simon, linux-kernel From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Date: 08 Oct 2002 12:25:14 +0100 [BTW that also came up in the large computing world too - we never merged a driver for the AP-1000+ fddi because there were only two cards on the planet 8)] Actually, that driver was in the tree for a long time. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-08 20:04 ` David S. Miller @ 2002-10-08 22:53 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-08 22:38 ` David S. Miller 0 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2002-10-08 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David S. Miller; +Cc: simon, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 21:04, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> > Date: 08 Oct 2002 12:25:14 +0100 > > [BTW that also came up in the large > computing world too - we never merged a driver for the AP-1000+ fddi > because there were only two cards on the planet 8)] > > Actually, that driver was in the tree for a long time. Are you sure - the drivers for many things were, but not afaik the fddi one ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-08 22:53 ` Alan Cox @ 2002-10-08 22:38 ` David S. Miller 0 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: David S. Miller @ 2002-10-08 22:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: alan; +Cc: simon, linux-kernel From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Date: 08 Oct 2002 23:53:01 +0100 On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 21:04, David S. Miller wrote: > Actually, that driver was in the tree for a long time. Are you sure - the drivers for many things were, but not afaik the fddi one I am absolutely sure, because I had this weirdo SBUS fddi card using the AMD SUPERNET chipset just like the ap1000+ one did and I was going to use their driver as a reference since it was in the tree already. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-08 10:11 ` simon ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2002-10-08 11:25 ` Alan Cox @ 2002-10-08 11:27 ` jw schultz 2002-10-09 7:37 ` Alexander Kellett 2002-10-08 15:52 ` David Lang 4 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: jw schultz @ 2002-10-08 11:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 11:11:44AM +0100, simon@baydel.com wrote: > The UART and Interrupt controllers in question are built into a gate > array. I can't see how any external or parts from other vendors > would be compatible. To get the board to boot Linux I have to > modify the kernel and lilo. I understand that under the GPL rules I > would have to make this code available. I am willing to do this but I > don't see the point. The point is that is the license fee. Under the BSD license the fee is giving credit. For Microsoft and other closed-source/propietary licenses the fee is in money. With the GPL the consideration (legal term under contract law) or fee that you pay is to make the source of your modifications and derivitave works available. Most of the time that is a fairly inexpensive fee. If you wish to negotiate a different fee all you have to do is get every contributor to agree to a seperate license for you. You are free (libre) to try but i think it would be cheaper to go elsewhere. > There is also more specialized hardware for which I have written > modules. Although there appears to be some unwritten rule about > releasing objects, I believe that the GPL rules state that these > modules must conform to the GPL also, as they contain header > files. I cannot see how any module can not contain Linux headers > or headers derived from Linux headers if it is to be loaded on a > Linux kernel. Leave headers aside for the moment. There is a tolerance (barely) of binary modules distributed largely because they suit the purposes of linux (world domination, haha). Using binary only modules that don't benefit that will draw the ire (if not prosecution) of the community. > These modules again drive gate array hardware for which nobody > else will ever have a compatible. Although I would dearly love to > use Linux as the platform for my project I feel I cannot release this > code under the GPL. The fact that may be custom hardware that no-one else will every have access to isn't relevant to the licence. The general concensus is that very few embedded projects are really all that dependant on such specialized hardware. > This is my dilemma and I am sure it is shared by others. For this > reason I cannot see how anything but an embedded PC with > applications or a perhaps a very simple hardware device could be > considered as an opportunity for embedded Linux. It isn't much of a dilema. It is just a simple choice you have to make. Do you create your own OS? Or if you choose to buy one, which license terms are best for you. Of course you are free to use linux for prototyping and product developement. The publication requirements only come into play when you distribute. If you choose to use linux to help develop your product and then distribute with a different OS then linux has helped to enlarge the GGP (Gross Global Product) and that is still good. > I have based these thoughts on my experiences so far. If you feel I > have drawn an incorrect conclusion I would be grateful for your > input. They may be correct conclusions for yourself. Only you can judge that. I doubt that they are correct generalizations. There are some things i would think about before rejecting linux on such a basis. Nothing prevents you from putting a firmware layer underneath linux or putting a bit more intelegence in your device and then providing a free driver that can interface with it. You may be able to put the intellegence of your hardware control in a user-space process with elevated priority. You might look into something like using the adeos nano-kernel to host linux and the device controll software as seperate contexts with a communications interface between them. There are so many ways to get linux and proprietary software and hardware to talk to each other it seems silly to reject it just because one of way bears license terms you don't like. If you wish to use linux and contribute good. If you wish to go away that is your choice. If you wish to whine, see option two. In either case good luck with your project. -- ________________________________________________________________ J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies email address: jw@pegasys.ws Remember Cernan and Schmitt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-08 11:27 ` jw schultz @ 2002-10-09 7:37 ` Alexander Kellett 2002-10-09 11:49 ` Alan Cox ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Alexander Kellett @ 2002-10-09 7:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: jw schultz, linux-kernel On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 04:27:19AM -0700, jw schultz wrote: <mid-sentence snip> > You might look into something like using the adeos > nano-kernel to host linux and the device controll > software as seperate contexts with a communications > interface between them. <snip> This talk of adeos reminds me of something that i'd "dreamed" of a while back. Whats the feasability of having a 70kb kernel that barely even provides support for user space apps and is basically just an hardware abstraction layer for "applications" that can be written as kernel modules? mvg, Alex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-09 7:37 ` Alexander Kellett @ 2002-10-09 11:49 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-09 11:53 ` Richard B. Johnson 2002-10-13 16:30 ` Eric W. Biederman 2002-10-09 12:42 ` Ian Molton 2002-10-10 4:47 ` Shane Nay 2 siblings, 2 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2002-10-09 11:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Kellett; +Cc: jw schultz, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 08:37, Alexander Kellett wrote: > This talk of adeos reminds me of something that i'd > "dreamed" of a while back. Whats the feasability of > having a 70kb kernel that barely even provides support > for user space apps and is basically just an hardware > abstraction layer for "applications" that can be > written as kernel modules? Its called FreeDOS, ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-09 11:49 ` Alan Cox @ 2002-10-09 11:53 ` Richard B. Johnson 2002-10-09 19:17 ` jbradford 2002-10-13 16:30 ` Eric W. Biederman 1 sibling, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Richard B. Johnson @ 2002-10-09 11:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Alexander Kellett, jw schultz, Linux Kernel Mailing List On 9 Oct 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 08:37, Alexander Kellett wrote: > > This talk of adeos reminds me of something that i'd > > "dreamed" of a while back. Whats the feasability of > > having a 70kb kernel that barely even provides support > > for user space apps and is basically just an hardware > > abstraction layer for "applications" that can be > > written as kernel modules? > > Its called FreeDOS, > -emm. Maybe he needs just a bit more. There's s book by Richard A. Burgess, "Developing your own 32-bit Operating System". Howard W Sams. ISBN 0-672-30655-7. It comes with a CDROM and a small OS that works. In fact, it seems that a well-known, expensive 32-bit OS used by a lot of the embedded companies is is DIRECT COPY of this! In many procedures they didn't even change the variable names. The only thing they did was... oh well I don't want to get sued ... Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips). The US military has given us many words, FUBAR, SNAFU, now ENRON. Yes, top management were graduates of West Point and Annapolis. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-09 11:53 ` Richard B. Johnson @ 2002-10-09 19:17 ` jbradford 2002-10-09 23:49 ` jw schultz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: jbradford @ 2002-10-09 19:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: root; +Cc: alan, linux-kernel, lypanov, jw > > On 9 Oct 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > > On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 08:37, Alexander Kellett wrote: > > > This talk of adeos reminds me of something that i'd > > > "dreamed" of a while back. Whats the feasability of > > > having a 70kb kernel that barely even provides support > > > for user space apps and is basically just an hardware > > > abstraction layer for "applications" that can be > > > written as kernel modules? > > > > Its called FreeDOS, > > > > -emm. Maybe he needs just a bit more. Minix, maybe? John. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-09 19:17 ` jbradford @ 2002-10-09 23:49 ` jw schultz 0 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: jw schultz @ 2002-10-09 23:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 08:17:45PM +0100, jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote: > > > > On 9 Oct 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 08:37, Alexander Kellett wrote: > > > > This talk of adeos reminds me of something that i'd > > > > "dreamed" of a while back. Whats the feasability of > > > > having a 70kb kernel that barely even provides support > > > > for user space apps and is basically just an hardware > > > > abstraction layer for "applications" that can be > > > > written as kernel modules? > > > > > > Its called FreeDOS, > > > > > > > -emm. Maybe he needs just a bit more. > > Minix, maybe? Now, be realistic. What he asks here isn't that farfeteched. Tell me one other OS that has drivers of the same quality. I'll be the first to say (oops, Alan beat me to it) that a Linux stripped down that much wouldn't be Linux. However, it wouldn't be an unreasonable project to create sort of fork that strips Linux down to the bare minimum while still keeping the driver API. I don't say that it can be done just that it might make a reasonable public project if enough embedded people wanted such a beast^Winsect. The dificulty would be excising/replacing core code without breaking it, side-porting driver patches, and the periodic resyncing with Linux so new drivers and driver patches would still apply. Painful indeed. Of course it wouldn't be Linux. Maybe call it Minux or Minlin. And give it its own mailing list instead of linux-kernel. -- ________________________________________________________________ J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies email address: jw@pegasys.ws Remember Cernan and Schmitt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-09 11:49 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-09 11:53 ` Richard B. Johnson @ 2002-10-13 16:30 ` Eric W. Biederman 1 sibling, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Eric W. Biederman @ 2002-10-13 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Alexander Kellett, jw schultz, Linux Kernel Mailing List Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> writes: > On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 08:37, Alexander Kellett wrote: > > This talk of adeos reminds me of something that i'd > > "dreamed" of a while back. Whats the feasability of > > having a 70kb kernel that barely even provides support > > for user space apps and is basically just an hardware > > abstraction layer for "applications" that can be > > written as kernel modules? > > Its called FreeDOS, A 70KB kernel without device drivers, or anything much compiled in is a reasonable target. The whole "applications as modules" thing is an entirely different animal. The initial complaint about the size growth of the Anything is better that 200+KB compressed as a minimal size. Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-09 7:37 ` Alexander Kellett 2002-10-09 11:49 ` Alan Cox @ 2002-10-09 12:42 ` Ian Molton 2002-10-10 4:47 ` Shane Nay 2 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Ian Molton @ 2002-10-09 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 09:37:25 +0200 Alexander Kellett <lypanov@kde.org> wrote: > This talk of adeos reminds me of something that i'd > "dreamed" of a while back. Whats the feasability of > having a 70kb kernel that barely even provides support > for user space apps and is basically just an hardware > abstraction layer for "applications" that can be > written as kernel modules? Isnt that a microkernel? ;-) <ducks> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-09 7:37 ` Alexander Kellett 2002-10-09 11:49 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-09 12:42 ` Ian Molton @ 2002-10-10 4:47 ` Shane Nay 2 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Shane Nay @ 2002-10-10 4:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alexander Kellett, jw schultz, linux-kernel On Wednesday 09 October 2002 00:37, Alexander Kellett wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 04:27:19AM -0700, jw schultz wrote: > <mid-sentence snip> > > > You might look into something like using the adeos > > nano-kernel to host linux and the device controll > > software as seperate contexts with a communications > > interface between them. > > <snip> > > This talk of adeos reminds me of something that i'd > "dreamed" of a while back. Whats the feasability of > having a 70kb kernel that barely even provides support > for user space apps and is basically just an hardware > abstraction layer for "applications" that can be > written as kernel modules? eCos maybe?, vxworks, nucleus, but the first one is easiest to get ahold of sourcewise. A redboot type build is nearish 70kB if memory serves. (I've only played around with it once on a StrongARM chip for kicks) Thanks, Shane Nay. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-08 10:11 ` simon ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2002-10-08 11:27 ` jw schultz @ 2002-10-08 15:52 ` David Lang 2002-10-09 10:53 ` David Woodhouse 4 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: David Lang @ 2002-10-08 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: simon; +Cc: Alan Cox, linux-kernel note that you are allowed to distribute a binary-only module as long as you don't use the GPL-only kernel symbols. Linus has stated that he doesn't view use of the header files as enough to make a module a dirivitive work (others disagree, but there are a number of binary modules out there) check the archives for the various flame wars over this issue. David Lang On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 simon@baydel.com wrote: > Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:11:44 +0100 > From: simon@baydel.com > To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: The end of embedded Linux? > > On 7 Oct 2002, at 21:22, Alan Cox wrote: > > > On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 18:15, simon@baydel.com wrote: > > > a serial port and an interupt controller. What I was trying to explain > > > was that I would not mind making my code available for these > > > kernel changes. Although I don't understand why anyone would > > > want it. Apart from API changes, why do this ? The kernel is not > > > easily or frequently changed on this type of system. It would bloat > > > the kernel and I would expect to have to address problems of this > > > nature myself. However I would not like to make code available for > > > the more specialised hardware. > > > > That depends how specialized the hardware actually is. I think I've see > > six different non free implementations of 68360 sync serial code around > > all proprietary for example. > > > > The UART and Interrupt controllers in question are built into a gate > array. I can't see how any external or parts from other vendors > would be compatible. To get the board to boot Linux I have to > modify the kernel and lilo. I understand that under the GPL rules I > would have to make this code available. I am willing to do this but I > don't see the point. > > There is also more specialized hardware for which I have written > modules. Although there appears to be some unwritten rule about > releasing objects, I believe that the GPL rules state that these > modules must conform to the GPL also, as they contain header > files. I cannot see how any module can not contain Linux headers > or headers derived from Linux headers if it is to be loaded on a > Linux kernel. > > These modules again drive gate array hardware for which nobody > else will ever have a compatible. Although I would dearly love to > use Linux as the platform for my project I feel I cannot release this > code under the GPL. > > This is my dilemma and I am sure it is shared by others. For this > reason I cannot see how anything but an embedded PC with > applications or a perhaps a very simple hardware device could be > considered as an opportunity for embedded Linux. > > I have based these thoughts on my experiences so far. If you feel I > have drawn an incorrect conclusion I would be grateful for your > input. > > > Many Thanks > > Simon. > > > > > Also my original comments were much more aimed at the core stuff. People > > who made existing and especially core stuff smaller could send the stuff > > out. Several of us want to compile a CONFIG_TINY option, and suprisingly > > enough small is good on high end boxes. My L1 cache is 8 times faster > > than my L2 cache is 7 times faster than my memory. Or to put it another > > way, going to main memory costs me maybe 100 instructions. > > > > My Athlon thinks small is good too! > > > > > __________________________ > > Simon Haynes - Baydel > Phone : 44 (0) 1372 378811 > Email : simon@baydel.com > __________________________ > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-08 15:52 ` David Lang @ 2002-10-09 10:53 ` David Woodhouse 0 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: David Woodhouse @ 2002-10-09 10:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David Lang; +Cc: simon, Alan Cox, linux-kernel david.lang@digitalinsight.com said: > note that you are allowed to distribute a binary-only module as long > as you don't use the GPL-only kernel symbols. Is this formal legal advice? > Linus has stated that he doesn't view use of the header files as enough > to make a module a dirivitive work Linus explicitly refused to collect copyright assignments from contributors. Therefore he doesn't have the authority to make that kind of variation in the licence. And variation it is, in the opinion of many people who own copyright on parts of the Linux kernel. > (others disagree, but there are a number of binary modules out there) Indeed others do disagree. And the fact that existing vendors of binary-only modules haven't _yet_ been sued for it is not a guarantee that it will not happen. Unlike trademarks, copyright does not become void if you fail to protect it for a while. Anyone releasing binary only modules does run a non-zero risk of being sued for it. Opinion varies on the likelihood of them actually losing the case if that happens. Anyone considering releasing a non-GPL kernel module should consult their own lawyers at their own expense, and make their own decision as to whether the risk is acceptable. -- dwmw2 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 10:06 ` simon 2002-10-07 10:36 ` David S. Miller @ 2002-10-07 10:55 ` Xavier Bestel 2002-10-07 17:20 ` simon 1 sibling, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Xavier Bestel @ 2002-10-07 10:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: simon; +Cc: Alan Cox, Linux Kernel Mailing List Le lun 07/10/2002 à 12:06, simon@baydel.com a écrit : > The real point of all this is that the kernel developers seem really > upset about embedded code which is not released under the GPL. Err ... but you *can't* get away with the GPL if you distribute the kernel you modified, e.g. by selling your appliances. Unless you live in a country without copyright law, you are allowed to distribute linux-based software only if you enable source distribution too. Trying to actively fold your modifications into the mainline is another matter. Xav ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 10:55 ` Xavier Bestel @ 2002-10-07 17:20 ` simon 2002-10-07 22:59 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: simon @ 2002-10-07 17:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Xavier Bestel; +Cc: linux-kernel It is likley that this project will not go to the market with Linux as the OS. The original intention was to make available all kernel changes and ship object modules for the specialised hardware. Reading the GPL tells me that really it is not correct to ship modules either, athough I know people do it. For these reasons I feel I will have to use some other OS. What I don't understand is how people in the embedded world live with this and the reason for embedded Linux unless you are effectively running a PC with some apps. Cheers Simon. On 7 Oct 2002, at 12:55, Xavier Bestel wrote: > Le lun 07/10/2002 à 12:06, simon@baydel.com a écrit : > > > The real point of all this is that the kernel developers seem really > > upset about embedded code which is not released under the GPL. > > Err ... but you *can't* get away with the GPL if you distribute the > kernel you modified, e.g. by selling your appliances. Unless you live in > a country without copyright law, you are allowed to distribute > linux-based software only if you enable source distribution too. > > Trying to actively fold your modifications into the mainline is another > matter. > > Xav > > > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ __________________________ Simon Haynes - Baydel Phone : 44 (0) 1372 378811 Email : simon@baydel.com __________________________ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 17:20 ` simon @ 2002-10-07 22:59 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2002-10-07 23:18 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2002-10-07 22:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: simon; +Cc: Xavier Bestel, linux-kernel Em Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 06:20:46PM +0100, simon@baydel.com escreveu: > It is likley that this project will not go to the market with Linux as > the OS. The original intention was to make available all kernel > changes and ship object modules for the specialised hardware. > > Reading the GPL tells me that really it is not correct to ship > modules either, athough I know people do it. Well, ask a lawyer, but Linux is licensed under the GPL _plus_ some extra clauses, for instance it is ok, AFAIK, to ship a binary only module that restrains itself to using non EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL exported symbols. Think NVidia, vmware, etc. And yes, IANAL. - Arnaldo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 22:59 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2002-10-07 23:18 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2002-10-07 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo; +Cc: simon, Xavier Bestel, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 23:59, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Well, ask a lawyer, but Linux is licensed under the GPL _plus_ some > extra clauses, for instance it is ok, AFAIK, to ship a binary only module > that restrains itself to using non EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL exported symbols. Nope its GPL, barring the rules for user apps - check the COPYING file. Nvidia would claim their driver is a seperate work, and as such since its not a derivative work is none of our business ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-06 16:53 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-06 18:50 ` george anzinger 2002-10-07 10:06 ` simon @ 2002-10-07 16:15 ` Matt Porter 2 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Matt Porter @ 2002-10-07 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: David S. Miller, giduru, Andre Hedrick, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 05:53:26PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 05:28, David S. Miller wrote: > > Embedded applications tend to have issues which are entirely specific > > to that embedded project. As such, those are things that do not > > belong in a general purpose OS. > > 90% of the embedded Linux problem is not this. Its actually easy to get > most of the embedded needs into the base kernel - in fact they overlap > the other worlds a lot. No argument there. <snip> > No the big problem is that each embedded vendor is desperately trying to > keep their changes out of the mainstream so they can screw each other. > In doing so the main people they screw are all their customers. I just don't see much of this at the embedded linux vendor that brings my check. Everything gets pushed out somewhere. I know with some of the smaller embedded linux players I don't see any participation, but I'm not sure where you've developed this viewpoint ... oh perhaps it is from lkml participation? Let's think about that...many embedded developers have been around for years, some may have been more active in core kernel discussions on lkml (RMK) but others have been extremely active in arch-specific development. You don't hear from them because there is such a huge amount of work masked out by blobs of merges from the arch maintainers. For example, we have a very strong group of people working on Linux/PPC many of which have been around for years making the tree organized for the many board ports that need to be done, reacting to breakage from ia32-oriented development, etc. The issues are a little different in that we keep getting new sub-families of PPC processors and new boards everyday that don't follow a semi-standard PC architecture. Most of our time is spent just enabling these systems and working out arch-specific issues. That said, I have a laundry list of "mainstream" things like >32-bit phys remap_page_range, 64-bit resources, and PCI MSI support I'd like to work on. It just takes time and it's more important to fix fundamentals like our PPC 4xx SoC infrastructure. :) > So if the embedded people want 2.6 to be good at embedded they need to > get their heads out of their arses and contribute to the mainstream. > Otherwise they'll always be chasing a moving ball, and a ball most > people are kicking the other way down the field. Its a simple fact of > line, if you stick you head up your backside all you get to do is eat > shit > > (and yes there are some embedded people who do contribute but they are > sadly a real minority) Thanks for not completely diminishing our work. Regards, -- Matt Porter porter@cox.net This is Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-06 4:28 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-06 16:53 ` Alan Cox @ 2002-10-07 16:22 ` Matt Porter 2002-10-07 16:41 ` Rob Landley 2002-10-07 23:01 ` The end of embedded Linux? Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 1 sibling, 2 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Matt Porter @ 2002-10-07 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: David S. Miller; +Cc: giduru, andre, linux-kernel On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 09:28:32PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > Embedded applications tend to have issues which are entirely specific > to that embedded project. As such, those are things that do not > belong in a general purpose OS. Exactly, every application wants some of the finer details of kernel operation tuned to their task. > The common areas, like smaller hashtables or whatever, sure put a > CONFIG_SMALL_KERNEL option in there and start submitting the > one-liners here and there that do it. Ahhh, but you just defeated the ideal of being able to customize to task. This is where the hallowed "the user is dumb" theory bites us in the ass. A single option to control all these sizing issues reduces flexibility and that is what the embedded system designer is looking for. The ideal situation is if as we work on all these areas where we can reduce size, we provide fine grained options to tweak them (with a default desktop/server value and a default "tiny" value). You can have this CONFIG_TINY or whatever, but then we should also provide the ability to tweak the values exactly how we want in a specific application. The tweaking options can be buried under advanced kernel options with the appropriate disclaimers about shooting yourself in the foot. Regards, -- Matt Porter porter@cox.net This is Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 16:22 ` Matt Porter @ 2002-10-07 16:41 ` Rob Landley 2002-10-07 21:56 ` Gigi Duru 2002-10-07 23:20 ` Matt Porter 2002-10-07 23:01 ` The end of embedded Linux? Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 1 sibling, 2 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Rob Landley @ 2002-10-07 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matt Porter, David S. Miller; +Cc: giduru, andre, linux-kernel On Monday 07 October 2002 12:22 pm, Matt Porter wrote: > On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 09:28:32PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > The common areas, like smaller hashtables or whatever, sure put a > > CONFIG_SMALL_KERNEL option in there and start submitting the > > one-liners here and there that do it. > > Ahhh, but you just defeated the ideal of being able to customize > to task. This is where the hallowed "the user is dumb" theory > bites us in the ass. A single option to control all these sizing > issues reduces flexibility and that is what the embedded system > designer is looking for. Or it the Great Big Lever gives them something to grep for if they want to do fine-tuned tweaking and need to find all the places it might pay to give a closer look to. > The ideal situation is if as we work > on all these areas where we can reduce size, we provide fine > grained options to tweak them (with a default desktop/server value > and a default "tiny" value). 8000 controls you have to individually tweak to do anything is not necessarily an improvement over a single "do what I want" button. (User Interface Design 101.) The doorknob is a wonderful user interface... > You can have this CONFIG_TINY or > whatever, but then we should also provide the ability to tweak > the values exactly how we want in a specific application. The > tweaking options can be buried under advanced kernel options > with the appropriate disclaimers about shooting yourself in > the foot. Or they could play in the source code if their needs are sufficiently unusual, which more or less by definition they will be in this case. No matter how thorough you are here, there will be things they want to tweak (or would if they knew about them) that there is no config option for. "make menuconfig" is not a complete replacement for knowing C in all cases. > Regards, Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 16:41 ` Rob Landley @ 2002-10-07 21:56 ` Gigi Duru 2002-10-07 19:44 ` Rob Landley 2002-10-07 23:20 ` Matt Porter 1 sibling, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Gigi Duru @ 2002-10-07 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Landley; +Cc: linux-kernel --- Rob Landley <landley@trommello.org> wrote: > 8000 controls you have to individually tweak to do > anything is not > necessarily an improvement over a single "do what I > want" button. (User > Interface Design 101.) > > The doorknob is a wonderful user interface... > try driving your car using a doorknob ;) __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 21:56 ` Gigi Duru @ 2002-10-07 19:44 ` Rob Landley 2002-10-08 13:22 ` Thomas Molina 0 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Rob Landley @ 2002-10-07 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gigi Duru; +Cc: linux-kernel On Monday 07 October 2002 05:56 pm, Gigi Duru wrote: > --- Rob Landley <landley@trommello.org> wrote: > > 8000 controls you have to individually tweak to do > > anything is not > > necessarily an improvement over a single "do what I > > want" button. (User > > Interface Design 101.) > > > > The doorknob is a wonderful user interface... > > try driving your car using a doorknob ;) The steering wheel is fundamentally different? (It's certainly BIGGER...) Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 19:44 ` Rob Landley @ 2002-10-08 13:22 ` Thomas Molina 2002-10-08 16:34 ` Rob Landley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Thomas Molina @ 2002-10-08 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Landley; +Cc: Gigi Duru, linux-kernel On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Rob Landley wrote: > On Monday 07 October 2002 05:56 pm, Gigi Duru wrote: > > --- Rob Landley <landley@trommello.org> wrote: > > > 8000 controls you have to individually tweak to do > > > anything is not > > > necessarily an improvement over a single "do what I > > > want" button. (User > > > Interface Design 101.) > > > > > > The doorknob is a wonderful user interface... > > > > try driving your car using a doorknob ;) > > The steering wheel is fundamentally different? (It's certainly BIGGER...) Actually, I believe the wheel, and the rest of the user interface for an auto (gas pedal, brake) are a fine metaphor for this discussion. The user interface for a car hasn't changed in how many years? That is despite quite a number of technological devleopments under the hood. Having a simple user interface for the "novice" doesn't prevent all kinds of weird shifting, throttle control, etc. additions for the "expert". Having a single doorknob which controls, in a gross way, the action of a large number of "sub-knobs" is good. Giving access to the "sub-knobs" for the expert is even better. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-08 13:22 ` Thomas Molina @ 2002-10-08 16:34 ` Rob Landley 0 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Rob Landley @ 2002-10-08 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Molina; +Cc: Gigi Duru, linux-kernel On Tuesday 08 October 2002 09:22 am, Thomas Molina wrote: > On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Rob Landley wrote: > > On Monday 07 October 2002 05:56 pm, Gigi Duru wrote: > > > --- Rob Landley <landley@trommello.org> wrote: > > > > The doorknob is a wonderful user interface... > > > > > > try driving your car using a doorknob ;) > > > > The steering wheel is fundamentally different? (It's certainly > > BIGGER...) > > Actually, I believe the wheel, and the rest of the user interface for an > auto (gas pedal, brake) are a fine metaphor for this discussion. The user > interface for a car hasn't changed in how many years? That is despite > quite a number of technological devleopments under the hood. Having a > simple user interface for the "novice" doesn't prevent all kinds of weird > shifting, throttle control, etc. additions for the "expert". Having a > single doorknob which controls, in a gross way, the action of a large > number of "sub-knobs" is good. Giving access to the "sub-knobs" for the > expert is even better. And extending the metaphor, even racecar drivers use a steering wheel and gas pedal. (They almost always prefer manual transmission over auto, and like to have a tachometer in their display, but those are options for regular drivers in normal cars too.) There are 8 zillion strange adjustable things in a racecar, but that's for the pit crew to deal with, not the driver. The linux kernel is the same. Going into the source is definitely something the pit crew is responsible for, or your friendly neighborhood garage mechanic, or the guy who likes to change his own oil on the weekends. "make menuconfig" isn't anywhere near steering wheel simplicity, but the last time we had this discussion "aunt tillie" wandered through, which effectively ended rational debate if you ask me. (She's like that, I suppose. :) Still, cluttering it up any more than strictly necessary probably isn't a good thing. 90% of learning to deal with the linux kernel is learning to separate out the stuff you're interested in from the bits you can safely ignore at the moment, so you can tackle things one piece at a time. (For some value of "safely", anyway... :) Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 16:41 ` Rob Landley 2002-10-07 21:56 ` Gigi Duru @ 2002-10-07 23:20 ` Matt Porter 2002-10-07 19:50 ` Rob Landley 1 sibling, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Matt Porter @ 2002-10-07 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Landley; +Cc: Matt Porter, David S. Miller, giduru, andre, linux-kernel On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 12:41:08PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote: > On Monday 07 October 2002 12:22 pm, Matt Porter wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 09:28:32PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > > > > The common areas, like smaller hashtables or whatever, sure put a > > > CONFIG_SMALL_KERNEL option in there and start submitting the > > > one-liners here and there that do it. > > > > Ahhh, but you just defeated the ideal of being able to customize > > to task. This is where the hallowed "the user is dumb" theory > > bites us in the ass. A single option to control all these sizing > > issues reduces flexibility and that is what the embedded system > > designer is looking for. > > Or it the Great Big Lever gives them something to grep for if they want to do > fine-tuned tweaking and need to find all the places it might pay to give a > closer look to. I can buy that too. It would be a great improvement over instructing people to grok all one bazillion lines of kernel code to understand how to tweak an area that might need to be massaged in three places. > > The ideal situation is if as we work > > on all these areas where we can reduce size, we provide fine > > grained options to tweak them (with a default desktop/server value > > and a default "tiny" value). > > 8000 controls you have to individually tweak to do anything is not > necessarily an improvement over a single "do what I want" button. (User > Interface Design 101.) Well, now you are at the other end of the spectrum. I'm not suggesting we head over that far. Some popular "high impact" areas could be provided the finer grained controls and the others could just be lumped together. I think there can be a middle ground that's beneficial. > The doorknob is a wonderful user interface... Yes. :) > > You can have this CONFIG_TINY or > > whatever, but then we should also provide the ability to tweak > > the values exactly how we want in a specific application. The > > tweaking options can be buried under advanced kernel options > > with the appropriate disclaimers about shooting yourself in > > the foot. > > Or they could play in the source code if their needs are sufficiently > unusual, which more or less by definition they will be in this case. No > matter how thorough you are here, there will be things they want to tweak (or > would if they knew about them) that there is no config option for. "make > menuconfig" is not a complete replacement for knowing C in all cases. True, but there are a number of people out there who want to do say a kernel port to XYZ custom board. They learn some basic kernel knowledge, but we can't expect them to be a guru of everything to get some work done. One thing that happens with even a little more flexibility is that the amount of traffic about tweaking things go down a bit. Not a "sizing" type tweak, but I often get questions about optimizing kernel VM space on high-end PPC systems. We put in some options so that TASK_SIZE, PAGE_OFFSET, and PKMAP_BASE can be easily tweaked...now it's easy to tell somebody where to look to make a change. Before that, it was necessary to explain both places that mod needed to be made to move KERNELBASE to a smarter value. Now, one thing I consider at this point is that if we do think about even a *little* more fine-grained settings, config options may not be the place to collect them. We could just have a common include to catch all these things. That would hide it away from the "dumb users" a bit and even provide a basis for a mechanism to have some different system "profiles" perhaps. CONFIG_TINY, CONFIG_DESKTOP, CONFIG_SERVER..who knows. Regards, -- Matt Porter porter@cox.net This is Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 23:20 ` Matt Porter @ 2002-10-07 19:50 ` Rob Landley 2002-10-08 15:04 ` Matt Porter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Rob Landley @ 2002-10-07 19:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matt Porter; +Cc: David S. Miller, giduru, andre, linux-kernel On Monday 07 October 2002 07:20 pm, Matt Porter wrote: > > > Or they could play in the source code if their needs are sufficiently > > unusual, which more or less by definition they will be in this case. No > > matter how thorough you are here, there will be things they want to tweak > > (or would if they knew about them) that there is no config option for. > > "make menuconfig" is not a complete replacement for knowing C in all > > cases. > > True, but there are a number of people out there who want to do say > a kernel port to XYZ custom board. They learn some basic kernel > knowledge, but we can't expect them to be a guru of everything to > get some work done. Another very real option here is Documentation/tinykernel.txt. (Possibly even going so far as a brief mention of uclibc and busybox/tinylogin, but mostly just about choping down the kernel for embedding in nosehair trimmers and electric toothbrushes and such.) Rob "waiting for the linux i-button" Landley. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 19:50 ` Rob Landley @ 2002-10-08 15:04 ` Matt Porter 2002-10-08 16:52 ` Rob Landley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Matt Porter @ 2002-10-08 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Landley; +Cc: Matt Porter, David S. Miller, giduru, andre, linux-kernel On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 03:50:43PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote: > On Monday 07 October 2002 07:20 pm, Matt Porter wrote: > > > > > Or they could play in the source code if their needs are sufficiently > > > unusual, which more or less by definition they will be in this case. No > > > matter how thorough you are here, there will be things they want to tweak > > > (or would if they knew about them) that there is no config option for. > > > "make menuconfig" is not a complete replacement for knowing C in all > > > cases. > > > > True, but there are a number of people out there who want to do say > > a kernel port to XYZ custom board. They learn some basic kernel > > knowledge, but we can't expect them to be a guru of everything to > > get some work done. > > Another very real option here is Documentation/tinykernel.txt. (Possibly > even going so far as a brief mention of uclibc and busybox/tinylogin, but > mostly just about choping down the kernel for embedding in nosehair trimmers > and electric toothbrushes and such.) I don't see these as mutually exclusive. Documentation falls out of date because it is often not maintained with the code. This would certainly be the case of a file detailing means to tweak a wide array of settings in the kernel. Having the settings controlled somewhere in the kernel forces the settings to not be broken as we move forward. This is the same simple reason we all try to get our drivers and board ports in the kernel proper (as being discussed elsewhere in this thread). I believe some finer grained controls (less than 8000 hopefully) coupled with some basic docs pointing out where they can be configured, a description of some of the more interesting ones, and mentioning some non-kernel tools would be quite appropriate. Regards, -- Matt Porter porter@cox.net This is Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-08 15:04 ` Matt Porter @ 2002-10-08 16:52 ` Rob Landley 2002-10-09 11:38 ` Adrian Bunk 0 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Rob Landley @ 2002-10-08 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matt Porter; +Cc: linux-kernel On Tuesday 08 October 2002 11:04 am, Matt Porter wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 03:50:43PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote: > > > Another very real option here is Documentation/tinykernel.txt. (Possibly > > even going so far as a brief mention of uclibc and busybox/tinylogin, but > > mostly just about choping down the kernel for embedding in nosehair > > trimmers and electric toothbrushes and such.) > > I don't see these as mutually exclusive. Neither do I, but an "incredible shrinking kernel HOWTO" is less intrusive than marking up the source code with #ifdefs.. > Documentation falls out of > date because it is often not maintained with the code. This would > certainly be the case of a file detailing means to tweak a wide > array of settings in the kernel. > > Having the settings controlled somewhere in the kernel forces the > settings to not be broken as we move forward. Really? Since when? Go into make menuconfig in 2.4.19. Switch off "scsi support". Back to the main menu, try to descend into "fusion mpt device support". The menu still shows up (at the top level, I might add), but you can't go into it. That's been broken for over a year now. It's in the top level of menuconfig. I first reported it back around 2.4.6 or so. It just doesn't get in anybody's way, and that area of code is a mess, and not fixing it isn't embarassing anybody specific. Putting stuff into the mainstream kernel doesn't force it to be maintained by pixies. It's just that stuff that stays broken long enough, which nobody steps up to fix, gets removed. The main difference between code in the tree and Documentation/ in the tree is that if something is broken, you have to fix your copyof the code to get it to work for you, so it's not much more work to send in a patch. At that point, the work of updating your tree is already done, and if you don't send in the patch you've got to fix it again next release.. If the documentation is broken, and you sit down and figure out how to do it, you haven't already written up a howto. You won't get anything out of the howto at that point, but there's significant extra work in getting the docs updated that comes AFTER the bit you can't help but do. So there are advantages to having code in the tree, but it's not a magic bullet... > I believe some finer grained controls (less than 8000 hopefully) > coupled with some basic docs pointing out where they can be configured, > a description of some of the more interesting ones, and mentioning some > non-kernel tools would be quite appropriate. A hybrid approach does sound best... > Regards, Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-08 16:52 ` Rob Landley @ 2002-10-09 11:38 ` Adrian Bunk 2002-10-09 12:15 ` [patch] show Fusion MPT dialog only when CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SD is set Adrian Bunk 2002-10-09 19:54 ` [PATCH]: Move Fusion MPT config menu into scsi driver support (was Re: The end of embedded Linux?) Rob Landley 0 siblings, 2 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Adrian Bunk @ 2002-10-09 11:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Landley; +Cc: Matt Porter, linux-kernel On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Rob Landley wrote: >... > Go into make menuconfig in 2.4.19. Switch off "scsi support". Back to the > main menu, try to descend into "fusion mpt device support". The menu still > shows up (at the top level, I might add), but you can't go into it. > > That's been broken for over a year now. It's in the top level of menuconfig. > I first reported it back around 2.4.6 or so. It just doesn't get in > anybody's way, and that area of code is a mess, and not fixing it isn't > embarassing anybody specific. >... I assume the patch below fixes this for i386 (similar patches are needed for at most four other architectures)? > Rob cu Adrian --- l/arch/i386/config.in.old 2002-10-09 13:28:59.000000000 +0200 +++ l/arch/i386/config.in 2002-10-09 13:31:44.000000000 +0200 @@ -357,7 +357,11 @@ fi endmenu -source drivers/message/fusion/Config.in +if [ "$CONFIG_SCSI" != "n" ]; then + if [ "$CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SD" != "n" ]; then + source drivers/message/fusion/Config.in + fi +fi source drivers/ieee1394/Config.in ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* [patch] show Fusion MPT dialog only when CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SD is set 2002-10-09 11:38 ` Adrian Bunk @ 2002-10-09 12:15 ` Adrian Bunk 2002-10-09 19:55 ` Rob Landley 2002-10-09 19:54 ` [PATCH]: Move Fusion MPT config menu into scsi driver support (was Re: The end of embedded Linux?) Rob Landley 1 sibling, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Adrian Bunk @ 2002-10-09 12:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rob Landley, linux-scsi; +Cc: Matt Porter, linux-kernel On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Rob Landley wrote: > > >... > > Go into make menuconfig in 2.4.19. Switch off "scsi support". Back to the > > main menu, try to descend into "fusion mpt device support". The menu still > > shows up (at the top level, I might add), but you can't go into it. > > > > That's been broken for over a year now. It's in the top level of menuconfig. > > I first reported it back around 2.4.6 or so. It just doesn't get in > > anybody's way, and that area of code is a mess, and not fixing it isn't > > embarassing anybody specific. > >... > > I assume the patch below fixes this for i386 (similar patches are needed > for at most four other architectures)? >... Thinking about it the following is perhaps a better solution since the fix is now in the arch-independent part. This patch includes the following changes: - offer the menu only when CONFIG_SCSI and CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SD are set - remove an obsolete comment (the force to module or nothing was already implemented) - remove a workaround for pre-linux-2.2.15 kernels - indentation It applys against 2.4.20-pre9 and 2.5.41. Tested with "make menuconfig" and "make xconfig" in 2.4.20-pre9. cu Adrian --- linux-2.4.19/drivers/message/fusion/Config.in.old 2002-10-09 13:52:33.000000000 +0200 +++ linux-2.4.19/drivers/message/fusion/Config.in 2002-10-09 14:09:28.000000000 +0200 @@ -1,37 +1,37 @@ -mainmenu_option next_comment -comment 'Fusion MPT device support' +if [ "$CONFIG_SCSI" != "n" ]; then + if [ "$CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SD" != "n" ]; then + mainmenu_option next_comment + comment 'Fusion MPT device support' + + dep_tristate "Fusion MPT (base + ScsiHost) drivers" CONFIG_FUSION $CONFIG_SCSI $CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SD + + if [ "$CONFIG_FUSION" = "y" -o "$CONFIG_FUSION" = "m" ]; then + + if [ "$CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SD" = "y" -a "$CONFIG_FUSION" = "y" ]; then + define_bool CONFIG_FUSION_BOOT y + else + define_bool CONFIG_FUSION_BOOT n + fi + + if [ "$CONFIG_MODULES" = "y" ]; then + dep_tristate " Enhanced SCSI error reporting" CONFIG_FUSION_ISENSE $CONFIG_FUSION m + dep_tristate " Fusion MPT misc device (ioctl) driver" CONFIG_FUSION_CTL $CONFIG_FUSION m + fi + + dep_tristate " Fusion MPT LAN driver" CONFIG_FUSION_LAN $CONFIG_FUSION $CONFIG_NET + if [ "$CONFIG_FUSION_LAN" != "n" ]; then + define_bool CONFIG_NET_FC y + fi + + else + + define_bool CONFIG_FUSION_BOOT n + define_tristate CONFIG_FUSION_ISENSE n + define_tristate CONFIG_FUSION_CTL n + define_tristate CONFIG_FUSION_LAN n -dep_tristate "Fusion MPT (base + ScsiHost) drivers" CONFIG_FUSION $CONFIG_SCSI $CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SD - -if [ "$CONFIG_FUSION" = "y" -o "$CONFIG_FUSION" = "m" ]; then - - if [ "$CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SD" = "y" -a "$CONFIG_FUSION" = "y" ]; then - define_bool CONFIG_FUSION_BOOT y - else - define_bool CONFIG_FUSION_BOOT n - fi - - if [ "$CONFIG_MODULES" = "y" ]; then - # How can we force these options to module or nothing? - dep_tristate " Enhanced SCSI error reporting" CONFIG_FUSION_ISENSE $CONFIG_FUSION m - dep_tristate " Fusion MPT misc device (ioctl) driver" CONFIG_FUSION_CTL $CONFIG_FUSION m - fi - - dep_tristate " Fusion MPT LAN driver" CONFIG_FUSION_LAN $CONFIG_FUSION $CONFIG_NET - if [ "$CONFIG_FUSION_LAN" != "n" ]; then - define_bool CONFIG_NET_FC y - fi - -else - - define_bool CONFIG_FUSION_BOOT n - # These <should> be define_tristate, but we leave them define_bool - # for backward compatibility with pre-linux-2.2.15 kernels. - # (Bugzilla:fibrebugs, #384) - define_bool CONFIG_FUSION_ISENSE n - define_bool CONFIG_FUSION_CTL n - define_bool CONFIG_FUSION_LAN n + fi + endmenu + fi fi - -endmenu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch] show Fusion MPT dialog only when CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SD is set 2002-10-09 12:15 ` [patch] show Fusion MPT dialog only when CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SD is set Adrian Bunk @ 2002-10-09 19:55 ` Rob Landley 0 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Rob Landley @ 2002-10-09 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Adrian Bunk, linux-scsi; +Cc: Matt Porter, linux-kernel On Wednesday 09 October 2002 08:15 am, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Thinking about it the following is perhaps a better solution since the > fix is now in the arch-independent part. That's good too, but it still belongs in the scsi low-level driver menu since it's a scsi low level driver. (I just sent a much less ambitius patch...) Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* [PATCH]: Move Fusion MPT config menu into scsi driver support (was Re: The end of embedded Linux?) 2002-10-09 11:38 ` Adrian Bunk 2002-10-09 12:15 ` [patch] show Fusion MPT dialog only when CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SD is set Adrian Bunk @ 2002-10-09 19:54 ` Rob Landley 1 sibling, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Rob Landley @ 2002-10-09 19:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Adrian Bunk, marcelo, alan; +Cc: Matt Porter, linux-kernel On Wednesday 09 October 2002 07:38 am, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Rob Landley wrote: > >... > > Go into make menuconfig in 2.4.19. Switch off "scsi support". Back to > > the main menu, try to descend into "fusion mpt device support". The menu > > still shows up (at the top level, I might add), but you can't go into it. > > > > That's been broken for over a year now. It's in the top level of > > menuconfig. I first reported it back around 2.4.6 or so. It just doesn't > > get in anybody's way, and that area of code is a mess, and not fixing it > > isn't embarassing anybody specific. > >... > > I assume the patch below fixes this for i386 (similar patches are needed > for at most four other architectures)? > > > Rob > > cu > Adrian > > --- l/arch/i386/config.in.old 2002-10-09 13:28:59.000000000 +0200 > +++ l/arch/i386/config.in 2002-10-09 13:31:44.000000000 +0200 > @@ -357,7 +357,11 @@ > fi > endmenu > > -source drivers/message/fusion/Config.in > +if [ "$CONFIG_SCSI" != "n" ]; then > + if [ "$CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SD" != "n" ]; then > + source drivers/message/fusion/Config.in > + fi > +fi > > source drivers/ieee1394/Config.in Ah, is that how you do it? (Where were you eight months ago? :) The bigger problem is that the sucker belongs in the SCSI menu, not in the top level menu, so something more like... (Patch against 2.4.19) --- linuxold/arch/i386/config.in Wed Oct 9 15:35:43 2002 +++ linux-2.4.19/arch/i386/config.in Wed Oct 9 15:41:03 2002 @@ -332,8 +332,6 @@ fi endmenu -source drivers/message/fusion/Config.in - source drivers/ieee1394/Config.in source drivers/message/i2o/Config.in --- linuxold/drivers/scsi/Config.in Wed Oct 9 15:39:42 2002 +++ linux-2.4.19/drivers/scsi/Config.in Wed Oct 9 15:41:52 2002 @@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ bool ' ppa/imm option - Assume slow parport control register' CONFIG_SCSI_IZIP_SLOW_CTR fi fi +source drivers/message/fusion/Config.in dep_tristate 'NCR53c406a SCSI support' CONFIG_SCSI_NCR53C406A $CONFIG_SCSI if [ "$CONFIG_MCA" = "y" ]; then dep_tristate 'NCR Dual 700 MCA SCSI support' CONFIG_SCSI_NCR_D700 $CONFIG_SCSI The above "Works for me." Not that I have a fusion MPT controller, but the config menu looks right now. :) And help says it's a specific brand of fiber channel controller, so life is good... Rob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 16:22 ` Matt Porter 2002-10-07 16:41 ` Rob Landley @ 2002-10-07 23:01 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2002-10-07 23:23 ` Alan Cox 1 sibling, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2002-10-07 23:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matt Porter; +Cc: David S. Miller, giduru, andre, linux-kernel Em Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 09:22:12AM -0700, Matt Porter escreveu: > The ideal situation is if as we work on all these areas where we can reduce > size, we provide fine grained options to tweak them (with a default > desktop/server value and a default "tiny" value). You can have this > CONFIG_TINY or whatever, but then we should also provide the ability to tweak > the values exactly how we want in a specific application. The tweaking > options can be buried under advanced kernel options with the appropriate > disclaimers about shooting yourself in the foot. That is how I think it should be done, yes. - Arnaldo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 23:01 ` The end of embedded Linux? Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2002-10-07 23:23 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-07 23:47 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2002-10-08 1:23 ` Xcytame@yahoo.es 0 siblings, 2 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2002-10-07 23:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Cc: Matt Porter, David S. Miller, giduru, Andre Hedrick, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 00:01, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: to tweak > > the values exactly how we want in a specific application. The tweaking > > options can be buried under advanced kernel options with the appropriate > > disclaimers about shooting yourself in the foot. > > That is how I think it should be done, yes. Submitting dprintk() seems like a great starting point. I've also got some patches in the archive someone sent that allows you to configure out the #! exec stuff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 23:23 ` Alan Cox @ 2002-10-07 23:47 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2002-10-08 0:06 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2002-10-08 1:23 ` Xcytame@yahoo.es 1 sibling, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2002-10-07 23:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Matt Porter, David S. Miller, giduru, Andre Hedrick, Linux Kernel Mailing List Em Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 12:23:27AM +0100, Alan Cox escreveu: > On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 00:01, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > to tweak > > > the values exactly how we want in a specific application. The tweaking > > > options can be buried under advanced kernel options with the appropriate > > > disclaimers about shooting yourself in the foot. > > > > That is how I think it should be done, yes. > > Submitting dprintk() seems like a great starting point. I've also got > some patches in the archive someone sent that allows you to configure > out the #! exec stuff Ok, will do that in the next days. - Arnaldo (buried alive in cleanups) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 23:47 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2002-10-08 0:06 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 0 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2002-10-08 0:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox, Matt Porter, David S. Miller, giduru, Andre Hedrick, Linux Kernel Mailing List Em Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 08:47:33PM -0300, Arnaldo C. Melo escreveu: > Em Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 12:23:27AM +0100, Alan Cox escreveu: > > On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 00:01, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > to tweak > > > > the values exactly how we want in a specific application. The tweaking > > > > options can be buried under advanced kernel options with the appropriate > > > > disclaimers about shooting yourself in the foot. > > > That is how I think it should be done, yes. > > Submitting dprintk() seems like a great starting point. I've also got > > some patches in the archive someone sent that allows you to configure > > out the #! exec stuff > Ok, will do that in the next days. Ok, so what do you think of a include/linux/debug.h and a CONFIG_DEBUG_MESSAGES and in debug.h: #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_MESSAGES #define dprintk printk(KERN_DEBUG.....) /* find the best of the 1001 variants already in the tree */ #else #define dprintk(.....) #endif and in drivers currently using dprintk (and in others that want to start using it instead of homebrew equivalent macros): #include <linux/debug.h> ...happily use dprintk... and the default kernel config would just disable (or other sane default agreed here) so, assuming it is disabled it'd be easy to enable it on a per source code file, doing this: #include <other_includes> #define CONFIG_DEBUG_MESSAGES #include <linux/debug.h> Would this be acceptable? Ah, all of the above is quickly hacked pseudocode 8) - Arnaldo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-07 23:23 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-07 23:47 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2002-10-08 1:23 ` Xcytame@yahoo.es 1 sibling, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Xcytame@yahoo.es @ 2002-10-08 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, Matt Porter, David S. Miller, giduru, Andre Hedrick, Linux Kernel Mailing List As you said in a e-mail before, and also mentioned in the very interesting book "Linux Device Drivers" By Alessandro Rubini & Jonathan Corbet , things should be done in the most simplest way. The reasons are both avoid rewriting of code in order to optimize it, and also when things are small you can control them better and therefore your hardware is better accesed. Sorry about this little note from a kernel newbie to all the developers out there if it makes you feel offended in some way. > Submitting dprintk() seems like a great starting point. I've also got > some patches in the archive someone sent that allows you to configure > out the #! exec stuff > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 20:52 ` Gigi Duru ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2002-10-06 4:28 ` David S. Miller @ 2002-10-06 13:02 ` Ian Molton 4 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Ian Molton @ 2002-10-06 13:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gigi Duru; +Cc: andre, linux-kernel On Sat, 5 Oct 2002 13:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Gigi Duru <giduru@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Now thats some advice from a kernel hacker... You > really don't seem to care too much about embedded, do > you? I do. I have to. Im porting the Linux kernel to the arm26 architecture (repairing the long dead port by Russell King). Even on these tiny, 15 year old machines, the kernel will EASILY fit into their ROMs, with bags of room to spare. The biggest machine EVER of this type has only 16 MB of RAM. most have 2-4MB. Some even have MFM harddiscs. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 19:36 The end of embedded Linux? Gigi Duru ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2002-10-05 19:53 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2002-10-05 19:53 ` jbradford 2002-10-05 22:23 ` Oliver Xymoron ` (4 subsequent siblings) 8 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: jbradford @ 2002-10-05 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gigi Duru; +Cc: linux-kernel > Trivial experiment: configure out _ALL_ the options on > 2.5.38 and build bzImage. My result? A totally useless > 270KB kernel (compressed). > > Now try to put in some useful stuff and the > _compressed_ image will cheerfully approach 1MB. Where > are the days when a 200KB kernel would be fully > equipped? That is completely wrong. I run 2.5.40 on a swapless 8MB 486, and can happily use BASH, Apache with PHP support, Lynx, and JED, all at a useful speed. I also happily run 2.5.40 on another 4MB RAM 486, with 20MB of swap, and do useful work on it. If you don't believe me, come to Linux Expo UK next week and see for yourself. > I know you guys are struggling to bring "world class > VM & IO" to Linux, going for SMPs and other big toys, > but you are about to lose what you already have: the > embedded market. No, the 2.0.x and 2.2.x kernels are actively maintained. > As an embedded developer, I can't stand bloat. I think > an OS designer should feel the same, and develop in a > fully modular and configurable manner, going for both > speed and size. For a long time I've felt that Linux > has got it right, but lately I'm not that sure > anymore. Nobody is forcing you to move to 2.4.x from older versions - current code is being actively backported to them. John. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 19:36 The end of embedded Linux? Gigi Duru ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2002-10-05 19:53 ` jbradford @ 2002-10-05 22:23 ` Oliver Xymoron 2002-10-05 23:28 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2002-10-12 4:01 ` Daniel Phillips 2002-10-06 0:36 ` Rik van Riel ` (3 subsequent siblings) 8 siblings, 2 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Oliver Xymoron @ 2002-10-05 22:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gigi Duru; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 12:36:50PM -0700, Gigi Duru wrote: > > I know you guys are struggling to bring "world class > VM & IO" to Linux, going for SMPs and other big toys, > but you are about to lose what you already have: the > embedded market. It's still plenty small enough for many many embedded uses and most people are more than happy with it. The reason that it's not even smaller is no one has stepped forward to do the trimming. It's easy enough to do, but we can only assume from the fact that no one's done so is that it's really not that important. If you think it's important, either make it happen or pay someone else to make it happen. -- "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 22:23 ` Oliver Xymoron @ 2002-10-05 23:28 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2002-10-06 1:57 ` Andre Hedrick 2002-10-12 4:01 ` Daniel Phillips 1 sibling, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2002-10-05 23:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Oliver Xymoron; +Cc: Gigi Duru, linux-kernel Em Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 05:23:06PM -0500, Oliver Xymoron escreveu: > On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 12:36:50PM -0700, Gigi Duru wrote: > > I know you guys are struggling to bring "world class VM & IO" to Linux, > > going for SMPs and other big toys, but you are about to lose what you > > already have: the embedded market. > It's still plenty small enough for many many embedded uses and most people > are more than happy with it. The reason that it's not even smaller is no one > has stepped forward to do the trimming. It's easy enough to do, but we can > only assume from the fact that no one's done so is that it's really not that > important. > If you think it's important, either make it happen or pay someone else to > make it happen. I've been thinking about working on a CONFIG_TINY for ages and would love to have somebody else beat me to do this, as currently I'm too busy saving old network protocols and with a backlog of patches for general network infrastructure (clean up include/linux/skbuff.h so that it doesn't have any reference to specific protocols, in the same way that I did for include/net/sock.h) and macroising access to stats in tcp/ip so that we can be preempt friendly. I have also __initstr patches to free more memory after boot by moving the strings in __init functions to .data.init section that will help with embedded stuff as well. Some of the strings are passed to things like register_chrdev and would require changes in those register functions to copy the string passed as it will be freed after boot, etc. - Arnaldo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 23:28 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2002-10-06 1:57 ` Andre Hedrick 0 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2002-10-06 1:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo; +Cc: Oliver Xymoron, Gigi Duru, linux-kernel Gigi Duru, You just found your consultant, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo! Now issue a contract for deliverables on an opensource solution and become a hero for embedded. Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > Em Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 05:23:06PM -0500, Oliver Xymoron escreveu: > > On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 12:36:50PM -0700, Gigi Duru wrote: > > > > I know you guys are struggling to bring "world class VM & IO" to Linux, > > > going for SMPs and other big toys, but you are about to lose what you > > > already have: the embedded market. > > > It's still plenty small enough for many many embedded uses and most people > > are more than happy with it. The reason that it's not even smaller is no one > > has stepped forward to do the trimming. It's easy enough to do, but we can > > only assume from the fact that no one's done so is that it's really not that > > important. > > > If you think it's important, either make it happen or pay someone else to > > make it happen. > > I've been thinking about working on a CONFIG_TINY for ages and would love to > have somebody else beat me to do this, as currently I'm too busy saving old > network protocols and with a backlog of patches for general network > infrastructure (clean up include/linux/skbuff.h so that it doesn't have any > reference to specific protocols, in the same way that I did for > include/net/sock.h) and macroising access to stats in tcp/ip so that we can > be preempt friendly. > > I have also __initstr patches to free more memory after boot by moving the > strings in __init functions to .data.init section that will help with > embedded stuff as well. Some of the strings are passed to things like > register_chrdev and would require changes in those register functions to > copy the string passed as it will be freed after boot, etc. > > - Arnaldo > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 22:23 ` Oliver Xymoron 2002-10-05 23:28 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2002-10-12 4:01 ` Daniel Phillips 2002-10-12 4:09 ` William Lee Irwin III 1 sibling, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-10-12 4:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Oliver Xymoron, Gigi Duru; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sunday 06 October 2002 00:23, Oliver Xymoron wrote: > On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 12:36:50PM -0700, Gigi Duru wrote: > > > > I know you guys are struggling to bring "world class > > VM & IO" to Linux, going for SMPs and other big toys, > > but you are about to lose what you already have: the > > embedded market. > > It's still plenty small enough for many many embedded uses and most > people are more than happy with it. The reason that it's not even smaller > is no one has stepped forward to do the trimming. It's easy enough to > do, but we can only assume from the fact that no one's done so is that > it's really not that important. It has more to do with the fact that nobody has been using 2.5 until recently, because of bio and ide breakage. It's a big mistake to dismiss his request as unimportant. However, I strongly agree with the idea that interested people/companies should put up hard cash to get this work done. -- Daniel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-12 4:01 ` Daniel Phillips @ 2002-10-12 4:09 ` William Lee Irwin III 0 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2002-10-12 4:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Oliver Xymoron, Gigi Duru, linux-kernel On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 06:01:42AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > It has more to do with the fact that nobody has been using 2.5 until > recently, because of bio and ide breakage. It's a big mistake to > dismiss his request as unimportant. However, I strongly agree with the > idea that interested people/companies should put up hard cash to get > this work done. This hard cash is already being spent, here and now, and it is being spent on programmer salaries and the equipment for them to work on. Believe it or not, the businesses shelling out paychecks in our directions are not charities and as such the work we do for them must be directed to meet their needs. The reality is that the technical knowledge programmers have of kernel (and hardware, and app) mechanics is relayed in some form, no matter how dumbed down, up the food chain, and if concerns are expressed and action taken by those working in the field they will either be heeded by the effective organizations or dismissed by those doomed to failure. This is work, even if we ourselves would play in the same manner. If effort, contributions, and visible benefits are not provided, demonstrated, and delivered in a timely fashion, you -will- lose out, and your own needs and those of your organization will not be addressed. Bill P.S.: This is not a flame. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 19:36 The end of embedded Linux? Gigi Duru ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 2002-10-05 22:23 ` Oliver Xymoron @ 2002-10-06 0:36 ` Rik van Riel 2002-10-06 0:41 ` Zwane Mwaikambo ` (2 subsequent siblings) 8 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Rik van Riel @ 2002-10-06 0:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gigi Duru; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Gigi Duru wrote: > Trivial experiment: configure out _ALL_ the options on > 2.5.38 and build bzImage. My result? A totally useless > 270KB kernel (compressed). > > Now try to put in some useful stuff and the > _compressed_ image will cheerfully approach 1MB. > I know you guys are struggling to bring "world class > VM & IO" to Linux, The 270 kB kernel image still includes the VM, so it's probably something else that is bloating your kernel. It would be useful to figure out exactly what so we can fix it before 2.6 is released. regards, Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Spamtraps of the month: september@surriel.com trac@trac.org ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 19:36 The end of embedded Linux? Gigi Duru ` (5 preceding siblings ...) 2002-10-06 0:36 ` Rik van Riel @ 2002-10-06 0:41 ` Zwane Mwaikambo 2002-10-06 0:50 ` William Lee Irwin III 2002-10-06 0:44 ` William Lee Irwin III 2002-10-07 9:10 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw 8 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: Zwane Mwaikambo @ 2002-10-06 0:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gigi Duru; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Gigi Duru wrote: > Trivial experiment: configure out _ALL_ the options on > 2.5.38 and build bzImage. My result? A totally useless > 270KB kernel (compressed). You didn't configure it properly... http://function.linuxpower.ca/dmesg-386-2.4.txt Zwane -- function.linuxpower.ca ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-06 0:41 ` Zwane Mwaikambo @ 2002-10-06 0:50 ` William Lee Irwin III 2002-10-06 1:00 ` Zwane Mwaikambo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2002-10-06 0:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Zwane Mwaikambo; +Cc: Gigi Duru, linux-kernel On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Gigi Duru wrote: >> Trivial experiment: configure out _ALL_ the options on >> 2.5.38 and build bzImage. My result? A totally useless >> 270KB kernel (compressed). On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 08:41:25PM -0400, Zwane Mwaikambo wrote: > You didn't configure it properly... > http://function.linuxpower.ca/dmesg-386-2.4.txt > Zwane I actually find this relatively disturbing: Memory: 2584k/4352k available (881k kernel code, 1380k reserved, 171k data, 56k init, 0k hi) To truly scale this far downward finding ways to use less than 40% of RAM on things allocated at or before boot-time seems necessary, especially trimming down that 881KB. I'll have to apologize that it's unlikely I'll be able to take any direct action toward addressing this problem as my focus is elsewhere, but I consider this a valid and even important concern. Bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-06 0:50 ` William Lee Irwin III @ 2002-10-06 1:00 ` Zwane Mwaikambo 0 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Zwane Mwaikambo @ 2002-10-06 1:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: William Lee Irwin III; +Cc: Gigi Duru, linux-kernel On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > I actually find this relatively disturbing: > > Memory: 2584k/4352k available (881k kernel code, 1380k reserved, 171k data, 56k > init, 0k hi) > > To truly scale this far downward finding ways to use less than 40% of > RAM on things allocated at or before boot-time seems necessary, > especially trimming down that 881KB. > > I'll have to apologize that it's unlikely I'll be able to take any > direct action toward addressing this problem as my focus is elsewhere, > but I consider this a valid and even important concern. Indeed, the box in question didn't require any more memory for its application so that somewhat bloated kernel was sufficient. I could have saved a bit more by removing a lot of drivers, e.g. IDE Zwane -- function.linuxpower.ca ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 19:36 The end of embedded Linux? Gigi Duru ` (6 preceding siblings ...) 2002-10-06 0:41 ` Zwane Mwaikambo @ 2002-10-06 0:44 ` William Lee Irwin III 2002-10-06 22:24 ` Aaron Lehmann 2002-10-07 9:10 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw 8 siblings, 1 reply; 100+ messages in thread From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2002-10-06 0:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gigi Duru; +Cc: linux-kernel On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 12:36:50PM -0700, Gigi Duru wrote: > As an embedded developer, I can't stand bloat. I think > an OS designer should feel the same, and develop in a > fully modular and configurable manner, going for both > speed and size. For a long time I've felt that Linux > has got it right, but lately I'm not that sure > anymore. Identifying the portions of the kernel with the largest codesize and/or static data size would help other developers accommodate your needs. Similarly for dynamic boot-time and runtime allocations. Even better, if you yourself took action to correct this regression it would be as welcome as any other Linux development activity. Bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-06 0:44 ` William Lee Irwin III @ 2002-10-06 22:24 ` Aaron Lehmann 2002-10-06 22:54 ` William Lee Irwin III ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Aaron Lehmann @ 2002-10-06 22:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: William Lee Irwin III, Gigi Duru, linux-kernel On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 05:44:38PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > Even better, if you yourself took action to correct this regression it > would be as welcome as any other Linux development activity. It seems to me that what would be even better than patches is a general awareness of bloat and an attitude discouraging adding any bloat whatsoever to the base kernel. Proactive bloat prevention is a much better solution than asking embedded developers to send fixes whenever someone increases the size of the core kernel unnecessarily. Let's prevent a Mozilla here. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-06 22:24 ` Aaron Lehmann @ 2002-10-06 22:54 ` William Lee Irwin III 2002-10-07 1:33 ` Andre Hedrick 2002-10-07 22:25 ` Andre Hedrick 2 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: William Lee Irwin III @ 2002-10-06 22:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Aaron Lehmann; +Cc: Gigi Duru, linux-kernel On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 03:24:33PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote: > It seems to me that what would be even better than patches is a > general awareness of bloat and an attitude discouraging adding any > bloat whatsoever to the base kernel. Proactive bloat prevention is a > much better solution than asking embedded developers to send fixes > whenever someone increases the size of the core kernel unnecessarily. > Let's prevent a Mozilla here. Beware here. The kinds of time/space tradeoffs important to you are absolutely *not* apparent from "normal" testing. -You- are the embedded developers and users. The onus is on you to find space consumption problems visible in embedded environments. Yes, I am highly concerned about space. But that is not enough to address your needs. My space consumption concerns are largely ZONE_NORMAL consumption and data structure proliferation. This is a very different matter from boottime and absolute space consumption. You will not be serviced by my own efforts to combat space consumption. You must take action yourselves to provide both problem reports and code to address these needs. But this is a valid activity and a worthwhile direction to pursue. If you take action, it will be heeded. Bill ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-06 22:24 ` Aaron Lehmann 2002-10-06 22:54 ` William Lee Irwin III @ 2002-10-07 1:33 ` Andre Hedrick 2002-10-07 22:25 ` Andre Hedrick 2 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2002-10-07 1:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Aaron Lehmann; +Cc: William Lee Irwin III, Gigi Duru, linux-kernel On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Aaron Lehmann wrote: > On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 05:44:38PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > > Even better, if you yourself took action to correct this regression it > > would be as welcome as any other Linux development activity. > > It seems to me that what would be even better than patches is a > general awareness of bloat and an attitude discouraging adding any > bloat whatsoever to the base kernel. Proactive bloat prevention is a > much better solution than asking embedded developers to send fixes > whenever someone increases the size of the core kernel unnecessarily. > Let's prevent a Mozilla here. So lemme guess, you calling "embedded" == "Mozilla" ? This is the reason those developers do not submit patches and fixes? Under that rational, why not unplug the support for the embedded archs? This follows your line of reasoning perfectly? So you are proposing to unbloat the kernel by not fixing and patch archs which embedded people depend on? Thus letting then rot and die then final removal of baggage? Sarcasim and Humor, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-06 22:24 ` Aaron Lehmann 2002-10-06 22:54 ` William Lee Irwin III 2002-10-07 1:33 ` Andre Hedrick @ 2002-10-07 22:25 ` Andre Hedrick 2 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Andre Hedrick @ 2002-10-07 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Aaron Lehmann; +Cc: linux-kernel Aaron, Erik A (code-poet) just informed me that I misread the to/from line and so I mistakenly replyed to you with the "sarcasim and humor". I apologize for my dyslexia and for shooting off the hip to quick thinking it was "Gigi Duru" making the comments. Again, apology for not maintaining site-lock on humor-cannon. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
* Re: The end of embedded Linux? 2002-10-05 19:36 The end of embedded Linux? Gigi Duru ` (7 preceding siblings ...) 2002-10-06 0:44 ` William Lee Irwin III @ 2002-10-07 9:10 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw 8 siblings, 0 replies; 100+ messages in thread From: Jan-Benedict Glaw @ 2002-10-07 9:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1328 bytes --] On Sat, 2002-10-05 12:36:50 -0700, Gigi Duru <giduru@yahoo.com> wrote in message <20021005193650.17795.qmail@web13202.mail.yahoo.com>: > Trivial experiment: configure out _ALL_ the options on > 2.5.38 and build bzImage. My result? A totally useless > 270KB kernel (compressed). Well, from time to time, there are patches/suggestions on how to get the footprint smaller. If you do embedded work, you're oftenly not interestes in all the kernel's printk() messages. I have sent around some patch some time ago which (in kernel.h) simply #define's a printk to do nothing. Then, rename original printk() to your_real_printk() and convert _really_ important printk() calls to your_real_printk(), eg. Oops messages:-) On a small kernel, you can save 50..100 KB (in the bzImage)! That's a lot; think about uncompressed size! And - there are other options as well. Just _look_ at the code, _think_ about it and (possibly) _change_ it if needed (and publish the changes so that they're available to others). MfG, JBG -- - Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf für - einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger Gegen Zensur im Internet Jan-Benedict Glaw . jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481 -- New APT-Proxy written in shell script -- http://lug-owl.de/~jbglaw/software/ap2/ [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 100+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-10-14 19:27 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 100+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2002-10-05 19:36 The end of embedded Linux? Gigi Duru 2002-10-05 19:46 ` Francois Romieu 2002-10-05 19:49 ` Ben Greear 2002-10-05 19:53 ` Andre Hedrick 2002-10-05 20:52 ` Gigi Duru 2002-10-05 20:58 ` Mark Mielke 2002-10-06 1:54 ` Andre Hedrick 2002-10-07 23:28 ` Gigi Duru 2002-10-06 0:46 ` Rik van Riel 2002-10-06 1:52 ` Andre Hedrick 2002-10-06 20:20 ` Gigi Duru 2002-10-07 2:01 ` Andre Hedrick 2002-10-06 4:28 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-06 16:53 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-06 18:50 ` george anzinger 2002-10-07 10:06 ` simon 2002-10-07 10:36 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-07 11:57 ` Russell King 2002-10-07 12:10 ` Abraham vd Merwe 2002-10-07 14:12 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-07 16:05 ` Nicolas Pitre 2002-10-07 16:02 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-07 16:20 ` Benjamin LaHaise 2002-10-07 16:38 ` Nicolas Pitre 2002-10-07 16:53 ` Mark Mielke 2002-10-07 17:45 ` Nicolas Pitre 2002-10-07 18:11 ` Richard B. Johnson 2002-10-07 18:54 ` george anzinger 2002-10-07 19:11 ` Russell King 2002-10-07 20:05 ` Ben Greear 2002-10-12 10:08 ` Richard Zidlicky 2002-10-14 12:26 ` Richard Zidlicky 2002-10-07 17:15 ` simon 2002-10-07 17:24 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-07 20:22 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-07 22:22 ` Christer Weinigel 2002-10-07 22:52 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-07 22:56 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2002-10-09 11:19 ` Jamie Lokier 2002-10-08 10:11 ` simon 2002-10-08 11:11 ` jbradford 2002-10-08 11:53 ` Richard B. Johnson 2002-10-08 12:09 ` jbradford 2002-10-08 11:25 ` Vojtech Pavlik 2002-10-08 11:25 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-08 20:04 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-08 22:53 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-08 22:38 ` David S. Miller 2002-10-08 11:27 ` jw schultz 2002-10-09 7:37 ` Alexander Kellett 2002-10-09 11:49 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-09 11:53 ` Richard B. Johnson 2002-10-09 19:17 ` jbradford 2002-10-09 23:49 ` jw schultz 2002-10-13 16:30 ` Eric W. Biederman 2002-10-09 12:42 ` Ian Molton 2002-10-10 4:47 ` Shane Nay 2002-10-08 15:52 ` David Lang 2002-10-09 10:53 ` David Woodhouse 2002-10-07 10:55 ` Xavier Bestel 2002-10-07 17:20 ` simon 2002-10-07 22:59 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2002-10-07 23:18 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-07 16:15 ` Matt Porter 2002-10-07 16:22 ` Matt Porter 2002-10-07 16:41 ` Rob Landley 2002-10-07 21:56 ` Gigi Duru 2002-10-07 19:44 ` Rob Landley 2002-10-08 13:22 ` Thomas Molina 2002-10-08 16:34 ` Rob Landley 2002-10-07 23:20 ` Matt Porter 2002-10-07 19:50 ` Rob Landley 2002-10-08 15:04 ` Matt Porter 2002-10-08 16:52 ` Rob Landley 2002-10-09 11:38 ` Adrian Bunk 2002-10-09 12:15 ` [patch] show Fusion MPT dialog only when CONFIG_BLK_DEV_SD is set Adrian Bunk 2002-10-09 19:55 ` Rob Landley 2002-10-09 19:54 ` [PATCH]: Move Fusion MPT config menu into scsi driver support (was Re: The end of embedded Linux?) Rob Landley 2002-10-07 23:01 ` The end of embedded Linux? Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2002-10-07 23:23 ` Alan Cox 2002-10-07 23:47 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2002-10-08 0:06 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2002-10-08 1:23 ` Xcytame@yahoo.es 2002-10-06 13:02 ` Ian Molton 2002-10-05 19:53 ` jbradford 2002-10-05 22:23 ` Oliver Xymoron 2002-10-05 23:28 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo 2002-10-06 1:57 ` Andre Hedrick 2002-10-12 4:01 ` Daniel Phillips 2002-10-12 4:09 ` William Lee Irwin III 2002-10-06 0:36 ` Rik van Riel 2002-10-06 0:41 ` Zwane Mwaikambo 2002-10-06 0:50 ` William Lee Irwin III 2002-10-06 1:00 ` Zwane Mwaikambo 2002-10-06 0:44 ` William Lee Irwin III 2002-10-06 22:24 ` Aaron Lehmann 2002-10-06 22:54 ` William Lee Irwin III 2002-10-07 1:33 ` Andre Hedrick 2002-10-07 22:25 ` Andre Hedrick 2002-10-07 9:10 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).