Re: [2.6 patch] make UNIX a bool

["Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>]

On 3/2/06, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 09:28:15PM +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?
> >...
>
> We do not have to export symbols we don't want to export to modules but
> needed by CONFIG_UNIX.
>

I'm probably exposing my ignorance here, but, what symbols would those be?

and does it outweigh the harm done to people who want or need
CONFIG_UNIX modular ?

--
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html