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 04:34:55PM +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 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
28 matches
Mail list logo
