Re: [patch 024/144] allow /proc/config.gz to be built as a module

Re: [patch 024/144] allow /proc/config.gz to be built as a module

[Randy Dunlap]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:27:25 -0700 akpm@osdl.org wrote:

> From: Ross Biro <rossb@google.com>
> 
> The driver for /proc/config.gz consumes rather a lot of memory and it is in
> fact possible to build it as a module.
> 
> In some ways this is a bit risky, because the .config which is used for
> compiling kernel/configs.c isn't necessarily the same as the .config which was
> used to build vmlinux.
> 
> But OTOH the potential memory savings are decent, and it'd be fairly dumb to
> build your configs.o with a different .config.

so after getting several disagreements on this, you are going ahead
with it.  I'm disappointed, but I agree that you have a right to
do so.  (IOW, I wouldn't be disappointed if some other patches
were merged even though someone disapproved of them :)

And the memory savings are not a big deal.  You even mentioned that
you had it confused with /proc/kallsyms.

---
~Randy

Re: [patch 024/144] allow /proc/config.gz to be built as a module

[Andrew Morton]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 09:39:54 -0700
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:27:25 -0700 akpm@osdl.org wrote:
> 
> > From: Ross Biro <rossb@google.com>
> > 
> > The driver for /proc/config.gz consumes rather a lot of memory and it is in
> > fact possible to build it as a module.
> > 
> > In some ways this is a bit risky, because the .config which is used for
> > compiling kernel/configs.c isn't necessarily the same as the .config which was
> > used to build vmlinux.
> > 
> > But OTOH the potential memory savings are decent, and it'd be fairly dumb to
> > build your configs.o with a different .config.
> 
> so after getting several disagreements on this, you are going ahead
> with it.

Actually I had this mentally tagged as "needs more arguing before merging"
but then forgot and went and sent it anyway.

So now it's in the "needs more arguing before we revert it" category.

Re: [patch 024/144] allow /proc/config.gz to be built as a module

[Randy Dunlap]

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:36:00 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 09:39:54 -0700
> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:27:25 -0700 akpm@osdl.org wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Ross Biro <rossb@google.com>
> > > 
> > > The driver for /proc/config.gz consumes rather a lot of memory and it is in
> > > fact possible to build it as a module.
> > > 
> > > In some ways this is a bit risky, because the .config which is used for
> > > compiling kernel/configs.c isn't necessarily the same as the .config which was
> > > used to build vmlinux.
> > > 
> > > But OTOH the potential memory savings are decent, and it'd be fairly dumb to
> > > build your configs.o with a different .config.
> > 
> > so after getting several disagreements on this, you are going ahead
> > with it.
> 
> Actually I had this mentally tagged as "needs more arguing before merging"
> but then forgot and went and sent it anyway.

Well, we agree on that part at least.

> So now it's in the "needs more arguing before we revert it" category.

Wrong order IMO.

---
~Randy

Re: [patch 024/144] allow /proc/config.gz to be built as a module

[Ross Biro]

On 10/1/06, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> wrote:
> > Actually I had this mentally tagged as "needs more arguing before merging"
> > but then forgot and went and sent it anyway.
>
> Well, we agree on that part at least.
>
> > So now it's in the "needs more arguing before we revert it" category.
>
> Wrong order IMO.

I think we should pull it and then argue about putting it back in.

    Ross