Re: [2.6 patch] make UNIX a bool

["Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>]

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 21:28:15 +0100 Jesper Juhl wrote:

> On 3/2/06, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:31:34PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It does also matter in the kernel image size case, since you have to put
> > > > enough modules to the other medium for having a effect bigger than the
> > > > kernel image size increase from setting CONFIG_MODULES=y.
> > >
> > > That's not very difficult considering the large number of modules that's
> > > out there that a system may wish to use.
> > >...
> >
> > This might be true for full-blown desktop systems - but these do not
> > tend to be the systems where kernel image size matters that much.
> > Smaller kernel image size might be an issue e.g. for distribution
> > kernels, but in a much less pressing way.
> >
> > The systems where kernel image size really matters are systems with few
> > modules where you know in advance which modules you might need. I played
> > a bit with the ARM defconfigs, and if you consider that you can't build
> > the filesystem for accessing your modules modular I haven't found any
> > where making everything modular would have given a real kernel image
> > size gain compared to the CONFIG_MODULES=n case.
> >
> 
> I believe the basic question is this: What do we win by making
> CONFIG_UNIX a bool?
> 
> As it is now eople have the option of building it in, building a
> module or not build it at all - I don't see why that's a bad thing.
> For people who want a small core kernel (for whatever reason) and then
> load additional capabilities as modules, the current situation is
> good. If we remove the modular option who will bennefit?
> Why not just leave it as it is?

amen, agreed.

---
~Randy