On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 08:14:12PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Wednesday 05 September 2007 19:38, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > You version doesn't work with CONFIG_MODULES right? > > > > > > It works with CONFIG_MODULES. > > > > Really? Take a look at this version, > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/4/169 > > > > Marcello had to implement a two pass build to add back symbol used in > > modules which got removed from the main kernel.. You don't appear to do > > that. Marcelo also claims better size reduction than you. > > This will discard EXPORT_SYMBOLs potentially used by > out-of-tree modules. > > I also saw ~10% size reductions, but then at run-time test modules > failed to load, they didn't find needed symbols. > > OTOH if I know that I am not going to be using such modules, > then this can be done. Will require another CONFIG_xxx, though.
One point to keep in mind is that the space penalty of CONFIG_MODULES=y is so big that CONFIG_MODULES=n is actually the most interesting case for small systems that really need small kernels. > vda cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/