[PATCH] educate users about x86 specific kludges instead of hiding thier ignorance

[PATCH] educate users about x86 specific kludges instead of hiding thier ignorance

[Ethan Benson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 429 bytes --]


Hi,

the phony bzImage target in the ppc Makefiles is not helping anything,
rather it just changes the confusion from `why doesn't make bzImage
work?' to `where is my bzImage?'

lets not hide users ignorance lets teach them instead.  the attached
patch replaces the phony bzImage target with a error explaining that
bzImage is x86 only and to use zImage instead.

please apply.

--
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/

[-- Attachment #2: Makefile.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 415 bytes --]

--- linux/arch/ppc/Makefile.orig	Wed May 14 23:33:00 2003
+++ linux/arch/ppc/Makefile	Wed May 14 23:35:24 2003
@@ -98,7 +98,8 @@
 BOOT_TARGETS = zImage zImage.initrd znetboot znetboot.initrd

 # All the instructions talk about "make bzImage".
-bzImage: zImage
+bzImage:
+	$(error bzImage is an x86 specific hack to work around broken design.  Try make zImage)

 $(BOOT_TARGETS): $(CHECKS) vmlinux
 	@$(MAKEBOOT) $@

Re: [PATCH] educate users about x86 specific kludges instead of hiding thier ignorance

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:42:14PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:

> the phony bzImage target in the ppc Makefiles is not helping anything,
> rather it just changes the confusion from `why doesn't make bzImage
> work?' to `where is my bzImage?'
>
> lets not hide users ignorance lets teach them instead.  the attached
> patch replaces the phony bzImage target with a error explaining that
> bzImage is x86 only and to use zImage instead.
>
> please apply.

I agree that it's a stupid thing to do (and, btw, 'bzImage' on m68k is,
or was anyhow, a bzip2 image adding to the fun) but this came in,
intentionally, from Paul exactly because the system said 'Now use make
bzImage'.  Maybe this can die in 2.5, but I haven't paid attention in
some time.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: [PATCH] educate users about x86 specific kludges instead of hiding thier ignorance

[Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler]

At 2:01 PM -0500 5/15/03, Tom Rini wrote:
>(and, btw, 'bzImage' on m68k is,
>or was anyhow, a bzip2 image adding to the fun)

Yeah, that would be my fault. :)

I wrote that in before I had access to an x86 linux machine, so I was not
aware that "bzImage" meant "work around stupid bios/realmode limitations"
and not "use bz2 compression".

Speaking of which, is it even possible these days to build a kernel small
enough for (non-b) zImage on x86? I think it's been a while since I've even
made one that can fit on a floppy.


Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)


--
Tony "Nicoya" Mantler - Renaissance Nerd Extraordinaire - nicoya@apia.dhs.org
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada           --           http://nicoya.feline.pp.se/


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: [PATCH] educate users about x86 specific kludges instead of hiding thier ignorance

[linas]

On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 02:11:42PM -0500, Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler wrote:
> Speaking of which, is it even possible these days to build a kernel small
> enough for (non-b) zImage on x86? I think it's been a while since I've even
> made one that can fit on a floppy.

If you put most things into modules, then yes, its still very possible.


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: [PATCH] educate users about x86 specific kludges instead of hiding thier ignorance

[Trevor Woerner]

On May 15, 2003 04:22 pm, linas@austin.ibm.com wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 02:11:42PM -0500, Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler wrote:
> > Speaking of which, is it even possible these days to build a kernel
> > small enough for (non-b) zImage on x86? I think it's been a while
> > since I've even made one that can fit on a floppy.
>
> If you put most things into modules, then yes, its still very
> possible.

This might be hard to believe, but when I had to make small x86 kernels
(everything including compressed filesystem had to fit in 2MB) for a
little embedded device I was working with, I could usually make smaller
kernels by *not* turning on module support and simply including the
couple of modules I needed directly in the kernel. Being an embedded
device I didn't need very many extras. Enabling module support inflates
the kernel quite a bit, not to mention all the extra space for the
modules themselves and the modutils.

But yes, if you are trying to create a general kernel for a range of
devices (instead of one specific device) that have a lot of extras,
then building modules does keep the kernel size down.

I'm just trying to point out that there is a point where it makes more
sense to compile-in, rather than create modules, when trying to create
small kernels.

        Trevor

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/