Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> writes: > On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 02:04:46PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> For a config option that no one has come forward with an actual real >> world use case for disabling, that cost seems much too high. > > The real-world use case is precisely as stated: code size, both storage > and RAM.
That is theoretical. Which platform will break or feel distressed if we make it unconditional. That is real world. > I regularly encounter systems I'd *like* to put Linux in that have > around 1MB of storage and 1MB of RAM, or even less. Yes. There is so little code behind CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTART that it won't help with that. But if minification is the actual requirement for disabling CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTART than CONFIG_CHECKPIONT_RESTART is properly behind expert and it needs to be default y instead of default n. Eric
