On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Srdjan Todorovic < todorovi...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > On 22 June 2010 14:15, Robert P. J. Day <rpj...@crashcourse.ca> wrote: > > > > i'm in the middle of writing a lesson regarding the proc filesystem > > and i was wondering about any compelling reasons to *not* select the > > proc filesystem for the kernel you're building if you're working with > > a fairly new kernel source tree. > > > > the only reason i can come up with is if you're building a *really* > > tiny embedded system that is stripped and minimal to the point where > > it's unnecessary, but even *that* doesn't sound convincing. > > Perhaps if you only ever had one user process running (init?) and you > never wanted to run ps... > > Surely procfs isn't that big as to justify removing it on size constraints? > I ack Srdjan because proc can be skipped if you do not need more than a few userspace programs as a tiny embedded system where it has to deal with a specific problem rather than a general purpose embedded system like PC or a smartphone. -- Shaz
