On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 21:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > 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.
Marcelo's version actual deals with the CONFIG_MODULES=y penalty , which is interesting to me .. It removes symbols added for CONFIG_MODULES which actually aren't used .. So CONFIG_MODULES=y is just as interesting as without (to me at least..). Daniel - 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/