From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932190AbWJASvS (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Oct 2006 14:51:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932193AbWJASvS (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Oct 2006 14:51:18 -0400 Received: from xenotime.net ([66.160.160.81]:62942 "HELO xenotime.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932190AbWJASvS (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Oct 2006 14:51:18 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:52:41 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap To: Andrew Morton Cc: lkml , torvalds@osdl.org, rossb@google.com, akpm@google.com, sam@ravnborg.org Subject: Re: [patch 024/144] allow /proc/config.gz to be built as a module Message-Id: <20061001115241.fb9dc96d.rdunlap@xenotime.net> In-Reply-To: <20061001113600.3c318eda.akpm@osdl.org> References: <200610010627.k916RPIs010370@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <20061001093954.8d2aa064.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <20061001113600.3c318eda.akpm@osdl.org> Organization: YPO4 X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.9 (GTK+ 2.8.10; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 11:36:00 -0700 Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 09:39:54 -0700 > Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:27:25 -0700 akpm@osdl.org wrote: > > > > > From: Ross Biro > > > > > > 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