On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The question is whether the size of the Unix domain sockets support is
> > worth the complexity of yet another config option that we expose to
> > the user. For the embedded world, OK, maybe they want to save 14k
Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The question is whether the size of the Unix domain sockets support is
> worth the complexity of yet another config option that we expose to
> the user. For the embedded world, OK, maybe they want to save 14k of
> non-swappable memory. But for the non-e
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 04:45:21AM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > udev-free != embedded.
>
> But UNIX=m == waste RAM and have an effectively b0rken system until the
> module is loaded.
Well, the system isn't necessarily totally broken. If you don't use
udev, then system will be crippled, but no
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
> From: Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > The big question is: Is there any non-embedded system where you have
> > to aim for a small kernel image?
>
> One some platforms, due to bootloader restrictions or whatever,
> there are hard limits on how large t
From: Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 04:45:21 +0100 (CET)
> The big question is: Is there any non-embedded system where you have
> to aim for a small kernel image?
One some platforms, due to bootloader restrictions or whatever,
there are hard limits on how large the main ke
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 03:03:20PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > As suggested by Adrian Bunk, UNIX domain sockets should always be built
> > > > in
> > > > on normal
On Dec 31 2007 18:43, Patrick Mau wrote:
>
>May I ask something that might be obvious for most of the
>development community:
>
>Modules have to be loaded in seperate pages, right ?
That seems to be the case, judging from /proc/modules always ending in 000,
meaning each module is aligned at 0x100
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 03:03:20PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > As suggested by Adrian Bunk, UNIX domain sockets should always be built
> > > in
> > > on normal systems. This is especially true since udev n
On Monday 31 December 2007 19:37:43 Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> The base problem is that there already are many options to break
> external modules. (CONFIG_MODULES=n ;) )
Exactly. There already are enough ways to break external modules.
No need to introduce more. ;)
> The question I can't answer in
On Dec 31, 2007 6:18 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 31 December 2007 17:38:03 Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:17:19 +0100
> > "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > a) this could be disabled during development if you want this
> > > b) this would
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 04:19:23PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 02:26:42PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 01:09:43PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
>
> > > > > As
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 04:34:55PM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >
> >If you'd aim for a small kernel image, you would build anything as a module
> >that is not requred for booting.
> >
> Yes, there is a tradeoff for both.
>
> Example:
> 16:30 ichi:../net/802 > l fc.o fc.ko
> -rw-r--r-- 1 jenge
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 04:19:23PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 02:26:42PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 01:09:43PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
>
> > > > > As
On Monday 31 December 2007 17:38:03 Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:17:19 +0100
> "Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > a) this could be disabled during development if you want this
> > b) this would even only affect development if you add new code that
> > now needs a EXPORT_
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:17:19 +0100
"Torsten Kaiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) this could be disabled during development if you want this
> b) this would even only affect development if you add new code that
> now needs a EXPORT_SYMBOL that was removed on an earlier build. And
> right now thi
On Dec 31, 2007 5:01 PM, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd say the practical advantage to the user would be almost zero.
> > Which distribution is going to enable this option and defacto
> > banning external modules?
>
> It would be a real nuisance for developing code let alone for using
On Dec 31, 2007 4:59 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 31 December 2007 16:55:57 Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > One thing I always wondered about in this discussion about wasted
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL's:
> > Shouldn't it be possible to garbage collect these?
> >
> > depmod already con
> I'd say the practical advantage to the user would be almost zero.
> Which distribution is going to enable this option and defacto
> banning external modules?
It would be a real nuisance for developing code let alone for using it.
The entries are currently far bigger than is needed and fixing tha
On Monday 31 December 2007 16:55:57 Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2007 3:42 PM, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > With CONFIG_MODULES=y the 13 EXPORT_SYMBOL's that only exist for the
> > theoretical possibility of CONIG_UNIX=m waste a few hundred bytes
> > of memory.
>
> One thing I
On Dec 31, 2007 3:42 PM, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With CONFIG_MODULES=y the 13 EXPORT_SYMBOL's that only exist for the
> theoretical possibility of CONIG_UNIX=m waste a few hundred bytes
> of memory.
One thing I always wondered about in this discussion about wasted
EXPORT_SYMBOL's:
On Dec 31 2007 16:19, Bodo Eggert wrote:
>Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>
>> The only advantage I see is that the kernel image you have to flash
>> can be made smaller - with the disadvantage that the running kernel
>> is bigger by more than 10%.
>>
>> If you don't believe me, try it yourself:
>> Build a
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 02:26:42PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 01:09:43PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > > > As suggested by Adrian Bunk, UNIX domain sockets should always be built
> >
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 02:26:42PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 01:09:43PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
>
> > > As suggested by Adrian Bunk, UNIX domain sockets should always be built
> > > in
> > > on normal systems. This is especi
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
> From: Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > As suggested by Adrian Bunk, UNIX domain sockets should always be built in
> > on normal systems. This is especially true since udev needs these sockets
> > and fails to run if UNIX=m.
> >
> > Signed-Off-By: Bod
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 01:09:43PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > As suggested by Adrian Bunk, UNIX domain sockets should always be built in
> > on normal systems. This is especially true since udev needs these sockets
> > and fails to run if UNIX=m.
> >
when i had that module modular and added to the initrd, udev didn`t work,
though.
same error message:
udevd[1226]: init_udev_socket: error getting socket: Address family not
supported by protocol
not sure if i did a mistake here
anyway, this message is not obvious to the end user.
i like
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 01:09:43PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> As suggested by Adrian Bunk, UNIX domain sockets should always be built in
> on normal systems. This is especially true since udev needs these sockets
> and fails to run if UNIX=m.
>
> Signed-Off-By: Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
From: Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:09:43 +0100 (CET)
> As suggested by Adrian Bunk, UNIX domain sockets should always be built in
> on normal systems. This is especially true since udev needs these sockets
> and fails to run if UNIX=m.
>
> Signed-Off-By: Bodo Eggert
As suggested by Adrian Bunk, UNIX domain sockets should always be built in
on normal systems. This is especially true since udev needs these sockets
and fails to run if UNIX=m.
Signed-Off-By: Bodo Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Last minute change: I decided against making it a bool because embed
29 matches
Mail list logo
