Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is whether the size of the Unix domain sockets support is
worth the complexity of yet another config option that we expose to
the user. For the embedded world, OK, maybe they want to save 14k of
non-swappable memory. But for the
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Herbert Xu wrote:
Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is whether the size of the Unix domain sockets support is
worth the complexity of yet another config option that we expose to
the user. For the embedded world, OK, maybe they want to save 14k of
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Al Viro wrote:
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 03:03:20PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
From: Bodo Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As suggested by Adrian Bunk, UNIX domain sockets should always be built
in
on normal systems. This is
From: Bodo Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 04:45:21 +0100 (CET)
The big question is: Is there any non-embedded system where you have
to aim for a small kernel image?
One some platforms, due to bootloader restrictions or whatever,
there are hard limits on how large the main
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
From: Bodo Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The big question is: Is there any non-embedded system where you have
to aim for a small kernel image?
One some platforms, due to bootloader restrictions or whatever,
there are hard limits on how large the main
On Tue, Jan 01, 2008 at 04:45:21AM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
udev-free != embedded.
But UNIX=m == waste RAM and have an effectively b0rken system until the
module is loaded.
Well, the system isn't necessarily totally broken. If you don't use
udev, then system will be crippled, but not
