Am Mittwoch, den 03.09.2008, 01:38 +0200 schrieb Javier Martín: > But ata and reiserfs > are quite the bloaters... The reiserfs case is particularly strange: in > the linux kernel, the reiserfs module is 50% bigger than ext3.ko; while > in GRUB, reiserfs.mod (without journaling) is twice the size of ext2.mod > (which includes full support for ext2, partial journal support in ext3 > and extents in ext4).
ata.mod needs work anyway to be ready to end up in core.img fs/ext2.c doestn't support the journaling at all. The code was reverted, just not 100% complete. The structures are still defined but not used, just use your favourite editor and search for `journal'. But comparing the size difference between ext2.ko and reiserfs.ko (or however exactly it's called, I used it ages ago last) with the size difference of grub2's ext2.mod and reiserfs.mod is probable like apples and oranges. Kernel has full support for everything, wheres grub2 only needs small read support. > Thus, while you are right in prioritizing kernel size; why not optimize > reiserfs a bit instead of killing our (and future maintainers') eyes and > brains to shave less than 40 bytes from kernel? I suppose the story > would be similar with ata, because it is a new module that is yet in > development. If you can reduce the size of the modules, without making the code ugly then feel free to do so, but please keep things consistently to the current commited code. If you want to introduce new ideas/concepts then I suggest you do a [RFC] topic on the list to discuss it first. -- Felix Zielcke _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
