From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1Kafv9-00033M-Qm for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:08:27 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kafv8-00032l-9c for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:08:26 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Kafv7-00032M-FL for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:08:25 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48273 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kafv7-00032H-AS for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:08:25 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.157]:62271) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Kafv6-0007wf-NI for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:08:25 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l26so1715705fgb.30 for ; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:08:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=radBGHqnBTJUUNTKg8K4308OpO2AGC+XqCSUVZ2AcrI=; b=sSkpxz6WfQEeOznjToqUO7oi0Apbd5AKTW19NLGOpVnhZT5EAvwPcqCEELOuvw1Bco oxeOjcIxN0inNOgD4RbQ8TwTndTNwTedNocO7c0o9J4pCPHeqRsZV7qQEFV7IyQIHaAH 8cYLSWJRww1SQZj92fMY5k7kEvvnQiXCKQUz8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=POCLXg4HOh6MnZze/BGZb9T8n4aokH+NshoF1uLtC0QSFtQZuG+jQy6ETnzswT1ls6 5cy1kyf6QrKqCuDIKoeFYmQNUKGNPHR+B2XziUz3gbusk3j0WmoAyHjGQ+lF+IF/Rvjk LhzzRL0jRkERFMC4pheCYuLt12q6dooum0NjA= Received: by 10.86.80.17 with SMTP id d17mr6115543fgb.33.1220400503563; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.15? ( [83.76.170.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l12sm9055600fgb.6.2008.09.02.17.08.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48BDD573.5010809@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:08:19 +0200 From: phcoder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The development of GRUB 2 References: <48BD4C52.6040308@gmail.com> <1220367299.23879.15.camel@localhost> <48BD62BE.7090507@gmail.com> <1220373059.23879.25.camel@localhost> <48BD8847.9030502@gmail.com> <1220386216.23879.55.camel@localhost> <48BDBC96.3010602@gmail.com> <1220398682.23879.70.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1220398682.23879.70.camel@localhost> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Subject: Re: Sendkey patch X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:08:26 -0000 Hello, again. Javier Martín wrote: > We have 63 sectors = 32256 bytes (sectors range from 0 to 63 and the > first is used by the MBR). > I've just rechecked on my system. My first partition begins at sector number 63. This is the value I've seen at most systems. So last usable sector is 62. Sector 0 is MBR. So we have 62 sectors >> And now our core image (my version >> with error reporting) with ata,pc and reiserfs is 29654 bytes. This >> leaves us 2090 bytes. This combination is not something completely out >> of the ordinary. So I suggest to give the priority to the size of the >> kernel over readability (perhaps adding some comments to my version). > I was wondering why my data did not match yours, and then I realized I > was using my usual "extreme" combination of modules: "biosdisk pc ext2 > lvm raid" yields 29298 bytes, "plenty" of space. But ata and reiserfs > are quite the bloaters... The reiserfs case is particularly strange: in > the linux kernel, the reiserfs module is 50% bigger than ext3.ko; while > in GRUB, reiserfs.mod (without journaling) is twice the size of ext2.mod > (which includes full support for ext2, partial journal support in ext3 > and extents in ext4). > I'll have a look at it but not sure to find anything since I'm not familiar with either ata or reiserfs internal structure. > Thus, while you are right in prioritizing kernel size; why not optimize > reiserfs a bit instead of killing our (and future maintainers') eyes and > brains to shave less than 40 bytes from kernel? I suppose the story > would be similar with ata, because it is a new module that is yet in > development. Well the point is that if we don't do it now and then one day we'll have to squeeze the core it will be very difficult to find places like this. > > -Habbit > Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko