Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Kernel 2.6 size increase | From | Miles Bader <> | Date | 31 Jul 2003 14:03:34 +0900 |
| |
Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org> writes: > > The point was that in _some_ embedded systems, the space-savings is > > wanted, and so a useful thing for linux to support. > > As has been pointed out, there's things like the block layer that aren't > needed if you have just a subset of common embedded-device filesystems and > some network stuff seems to have creeped back in. All I'm trying to say > is that before you go too far down the CONFIG_SYSFS route, investigate the > others first as there's a fair chance of saving even more.
I'm not really trying to defend this particular config option, just saying that the attitude of `why bother trying to cut down, it's more featureful to include everything!' is not always valid.
You may very well be right that other subsystems offer better gain/pain, and I'm all for attacking the low-hanging-fruit first.
> To what end? One of the things we (== PPC folks) at OLS was that, wow, > doing PM as some sort of one-off sucks, and if at all possible we want > to get device information (and pm dependancies) passed in so we can tell > sysfs and get any shared driver done right for free, among other > reasons.
[What's PM? Power Management? What does that have to do with anything?]
-Miles -- Would you like fries with that? - 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/
| |