On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 09:32:13AM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 08:35:44PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 01:00:52AM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 02:58:30PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
In addition to that, debugging the runaway
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 05:28:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
When did we get callpaths like like nfs+xfs+md+scsi reliably
working with 4kB stacks on x86-32?
XFS may never have been usable, but the rest, sure.
And you seem to be making
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 06:49:19PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
...
But part of it is definitely gcc. Some versions of gcc used to be
absolutely _horrid_ when it came to stack usage, especially with some
flags, and especially with the crazy inlining that module-at-a-time
caused.
...
That
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 01:00:52AM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 02:58:30PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 05:28:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
When did we get callpaths like like nfs+xfs+md+scsi
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 10:35:05AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Rusty Russell wrote:
Your workaround is very random, and that scares me. I think a huge number
of
CPUs needs a real solution (an actual cpumask allocator, then do something
clever if we come
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:40:10AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
A debugging option (for better traces) to disallow gcc some inlining
might make sense (and might even make sense for distributions to
enable in their kernels), but when you go
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:47:01AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
I added -fno-inline-functions-called-once -fno-early-inlining to
KBUILD_CFLAGS, and (with gcc 4.3) that increased the size of my kernel
image by 2%.
Btw, did you check
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 02:04:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
If you think we have too many stacksize problems I'd suggest to consider
removing the choice of 4k stacks on i386, sh and m68knommu instead of
using -fno-inline-functions-called
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 04:00:33PM -0700, David VomLehn wrote:
Parag Warudkar wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Linus Torvalds
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And embedded people (the ones that might care about 1% code size) are the
ones that would also want smaller stacks even more!
This
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 04:51:52PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
We're much better off with a 1% code-size reduction than forcing big
stacks on people. The 4kB stack option is also a good way of saying if
it
works with this, then 8kB
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 02:48:07PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
Le Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:41:55 +0100,
David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
The config option probably lives in net/Kconfig, not init/Kconfig.
Yes, it could. But AFAIK, until now, all CONFIG_EMBEDDED-related
options
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:09:29PM +0200, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:27:04AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
This patchs adds the CONFIG_AIO option which allows to remove support
for asynchronous I/O operations, that are not necessarly used by
applications, particularly
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 06:26:16PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
Le Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:37:57 +0300,
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
I'm just not a fan of adding config options for each few kB of code -
we have to maintain them and the more complex the configuration
becomes
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:32:20AM -0700, Tim Bird wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
And for embedded systems with which applications is it 100% safe to
disable this option?
Sony's digital cameras.
This option *is* disabled in the kernel for (most) Sony digital cameras.
Those digital cameras
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 08:12:14PM +0200, Robert Schwebel wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 10:32:20AM -0700, Tim Bird wrote:
And for embedded systems with which applications is it 100% safe to
disable this option?
Sony's digital cameras.
We have also several very small automation
It seems the emails containing the patches never made it to the vger
lists, which makes it a bit hard to comment on them.
Thomas, can you try to figure out what went wrong and resend them then?
cu
Adrian
--
Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 03:57:42PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 17:55 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 09:41:47AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 02:00 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Wednesday 02 July 2008 01:41, James
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 03:23:21PM +0200, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
This makes the DMA Engine menu visible on AVR32 by adding AVR32 to the
(growing) list of architectures DMADEVICES depends on. Though I'd prefer
to remove that whole depends line entirely...
The DMADEVICES menu used to be
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 09:20:22AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 09:47 +0300, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
This may sound like a stupid question, but why are you compiling the
modules statically?
I wondered that.
One potential reason to avoid modules is that they waste
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:28:36PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
Bernhard Fischer wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:32:01PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
No, I'm talking about improving Autotools to handle some things better
than they do now. Passing the high hurdles required to become part
On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 06:37:29PM -0700, Tim Bird wrote:
Rob Landley wrote:
On Friday 06 June 2008 18:47:47 Tim Bird wrote:
At a minimum, it would be nice to have a few nice examples
of really, really small configs for things like qemus for different
architectures (just to give embedded
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:20:18AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
My only comment is I remember when Eric Raymond submitted a smart
config thing (before Kconfig, which copied Eric's best ideas).
The main objection to Eric's patch was that it was written in Python,
causing kernel builds to depend
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 10:16:22AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2008-06-03 at 22:13 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
git.infradead.org/embedded-2.6.git
Do you have plans to get that in -mm, or linux-next?
Should be already there in today's linux-next.
Does this imply you want
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 08:34:32PM +0200, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 01:33:53PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
My gut feeling is that the influence of this kind of linux-tiny patches
is hardly noticably compared to the overall code size development, but
if you have numbers
24 matches
Mail list logo
