From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753904AbYAAEsq (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:48:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750967AbYAAEsf (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:48:35 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:61428 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750945AbYAAEse (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:48:34 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 05:48:06 +0100 (CET) From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de> To: David Miller cc: 7eggert@gmx.de, viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk, jengelh@computergmbh.de, devzero@web.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bunk@kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Force UNIX domain sockets to be built in In-Reply-To: <20071231.194843.136619677.davem@davemloft.net> Message-ID: References: <20071231193848.GQ27894@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20071231.194843.136619677.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii X-be10.7eggert.dyndns.org-MailScanner-Information: See www.mailscanner.info for information X-be10.7eggert.dyndns.org-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-be10.7eggert.dyndns.org-MailScanner-From: 7eggert@gmx.de X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX198cK8/QQWxb4/ohbnWuQcr0OkL1GyirEay5LW dP41N34A3tEDNdGoJVdqkIjTDAqgFNaRlpThFt/slBEWzGFUih qIKX2RkS9bkkv4Uxu99AQ== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote: > From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de> > > 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 kernel image can be. > > On sparc64 for example the limit is around 6.5MB That would be about the size of a complete rescue system. I don't think we need to worry about unix sockets there, do we? > But this "big question" isn't the important issue, in fact it's > tangental and has no bearing on the final decision we make > here. > > Rather, choice is, and taking choice away is bad. I may have a reason > to make AF_UNIX modular, I might not, but either way taking that > option away from me is not the right thing to do. _You_'ll still have the option, because you have selected EMBEDDED=y (otherwise, you'd miss all other valuable options to cripple your kernel), while the folks that just care for a working systems will have what they'd select anyway without being bothered with useless questions. -- Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say: 5. Just add yourself to the password file and make a directory...