From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752831AbcIIHtG (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Sep 2016 03:49:06 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:33339 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752500AbcIIHtD (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Sep 2016 03:49:03 -0400 Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 09:48:57 +0200 From: Richard Cochran To: John Stultz Cc: Nicolas Pitre , Josh Triplett , Thomas Gleixner , lkml Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] posix-timers: make them configurable Message-ID: <20160909074857.GA9083@localhost.localdomain> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 02:19:24PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > Also given many other syscalls take clockids and the backing logic > isn't really getting removed (probably could cut the dynamic posix > clocks core with the same conditional), I wonder if you could get a > similar size win by taking a slightly more narrow cutting of the > subsystem. That way you could preserve the more useful clock_gettime() > functionality, but maybe stub out some of the less often used > functionality. I want to support tinification, but I also doubt the utility of removing clock_gettime() and clock_nanosleep(). I can't imagine ever building a user space without those. In fact, thinking about IoT, having good time is critical, and so these are the *last* functions I would remove when downsizing. Thanks, Richard