Re: [PATCH] extend physmap.c to support run-time adding partitions

["Jörn Engel" <joern@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de>]

On Thu, 23 October 2003 10:43:20 -0700, Jun Sun wrote:
> > 
> > o All those translate to improvements in the source code.  How about the
> > binary?  Compile with and without patch and post the kernel image
> > size.  And remember that noone will use two map files at the same time
> > in the real world.
> > 
> > o Copy and paste is simple.  So simple in fact, that everyone does it,
> > as you have observed.  Why make it more complicated, unless you have
> > clear advantages.
> 
> ... as if my previous listings are not advantages. :)

They are, no doubt.  But there are disadvantages as well.

> > Yes, I like the basic idea, tried to do it myself.  But what's the use
> > if all your users care about binary size and that increases?
> 
> I find it hard to belive this patch would increase kernel size.
> Can someone using existing propriatary mapping driver apply this 
> patch, switch to use physmap.c, and let us know the size increase?
> 
> How much increase would you start to really care in a typical .5M to 2M
> kernel?  1K or 10K or 100K?  I think the increase should be minimum if any.

I don't know and I don't care.  You want the patch in, you show the
numbers or convince David otherwise.

Jörn

-- 
All art is but imitation of nature.
-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca