On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Andi Kleen <a...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> We simply can not compete with user space, as a programmer is free to >> keep what he really wants/needs. > > Not true. > > With my patches and LTO Linux can be competive with LWIP+socket layer. > (about 60K more text). And it's easier to use because it's just > the standard interface. > >> I have started using linux on 386/486 pcs which had more than 2MB of >> memory, it makes me sad we want linux-3.16 to run on this kind of >> hardware, and consuming time to save few KB here and here. > > Linux has always been a system from very small to big. > That's been one of its strengths. It is very adaptable. > > Many subsystems are very configurable for this. > For example that is why we have both SLOB and SLUB. > That is why we have NOMMU MM and lots of other tuning > knobs for small systems. > > So if the other subsystems can do this, why should it be > impossible for networking? > Can this at least be done without the combinatorial explosion in number of configurations? As Yuchung pointed out these patches introduce at least one unresolved configuration dependency. CONFIG_SMP works quite well since with a single parameter we can enable/disable a whole bunch of functionality in bulk, and it's quite clear that new development cannot break smp or non-smp configurations. Maybe you want something similar like CONFIG_NETWORK_SMALL?
Tom > -Andi > > -- > a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
