* module choices affecting base kernel size???
@ 2002-05-02 14:49 Tom Oehser
2002-05-02 23:58 ` Keith Owens
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tom Oehser @ 2002-05-02 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Changing all =m to =n in my config makes a 4K difference in the kernel size.
But, the kernel compiled with them off still seems to load the modules fine.
Why is there such a size difference in the static part and what do I risk if
I mix a kernel compiled with the modules off with said modules? What stuff
is actually being compiled into the static part because of the modules I
choose? Doesn't it defeat the point of modules to have dependencies or even
effects on the static part caused by the choice of module compilation?
-Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: module choices affecting base kernel size???
2002-05-02 14:49 module choices affecting base kernel size??? Tom Oehser
@ 2002-05-02 23:58 ` Keith Owens
2002-05-03 0:57 ` Tom Oehser
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Keith Owens @ 2002-05-02 23:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Oehser; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Thu, 2 May 2002 10:49:41 -0400 (EDT),
Tom Oehser <tom@toms.net> wrote:
>Changing all =m to =n in my config makes a 4K difference in the kernel size.
>
>But, the kernel compiled with them off still seems to load the modules fine.
>
>Why is there such a size difference in the static part and what do I risk if
>I mix a kernel compiled with the modules off with said modules? What stuff
>is actually being compiled into the static part because of the modules I
>choose? Doesn't it defeat the point of modules to have dependencies or even
>effects on the static part caused by the choice of module compilation?
The majority of modules have no effect on kernel size but some modules
require base kernel code as well. This is typically common code or low
level setup functions. You will find that those modules will not load
now or will break.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: module choices affecting base kernel size???
2002-05-02 23:58 ` Keith Owens
@ 2002-05-03 0:57 ` Tom Oehser
2002-05-03 0:01 ` Martin Dalecki
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tom Oehser @ 2002-05-03 0:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Keith Owens; +Cc: linux-kernel
> Tom Oehser <tom@toms.net> wrote:
> >Changing all =m to =n in my config makes a 4K difference in the kernel size.
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Keith Owens wrote:
> The majority of modules have no effect on kernel size but some modules
> require base kernel code as well. This is typically common code or low
> level setup functions. You will find that those modules will not load
> now or will break.
Great. I must have missed the list of exactly *which* modules do this...
Any ideas on a reasonable way of how to identify them?
-Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: module choices affecting base kernel size???
2002-05-03 0:57 ` Tom Oehser
@ 2002-05-03 0:01 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-03 1:28 ` Keith Owens
2002-05-03 15:03 ` David Woodhouse
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Martin Dalecki @ 2002-05-03 0:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Oehser; +Cc: Keith Owens, linux-kernel
Uz.ytkownik Tom Oehser napisa?:
>>Tom Oehser <tom@toms.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Changing all =m to =n in my config makes a 4K difference in the kernel size.
>>
>
> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Keith Owens wrote:
>
>
>>The majority of modules have no effect on kernel size but some modules
>>require base kernel code as well. This is typically common code or low
>>level setup functions. You will find that those modules will not load
>>now or will break.
>
>
> Great. I must have missed the list of exactly *which* modules do this...
>
> Any ideas on a reasonable way of how to identify them?
Please grep for EXPORT_SYMBOL().
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: module choices affecting base kernel size???
2002-05-03 0:57 ` Tom Oehser
2002-05-03 0:01 ` Martin Dalecki
@ 2002-05-03 1:28 ` Keith Owens
2002-05-03 15:03 ` David Woodhouse
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Keith Owens @ 2002-05-03 1:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
On Thu, 2 May 2002 20:57:40 -0400 (EDT),
Tom Oehser <tom@toms.net> wrote:
>
>> Tom Oehser <tom@toms.net> wrote:
>> >Changing all =m to =n in my config makes a 4K difference in the kernel size.
>
>On Fri, 3 May 2002, Keith Owens wrote:
>
>> The majority of modules have no effect on kernel size but some modules
>> require base kernel code as well. This is typically common code or low
>> level setup functions. You will find that those modules will not load
>> now or will break.
>
>Great. I must have missed the list of exactly *which* modules do this...
>
>Any ideas on a reasonable way of how to identify them?
Not easy. Some of it is in the Makefiles, some of it is in the code.
Looking for conditional EXPORT_SYMBOLS() will find some of the extra
space, I don't know of any way of finding all of the extra code/data,
apart from compiling and measuring.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: module choices affecting base kernel size???
2002-05-03 0:57 ` Tom Oehser
2002-05-03 0:01 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-03 1:28 ` Keith Owens
@ 2002-05-03 15:03 ` David Woodhouse
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: David Woodhouse @ 2002-05-03 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Oehser; +Cc: Keith Owens, linux-kernel
tom@toms.net said:
> Any ideas on a reasonable way of how to identify them?
A recursive grep for #if.*CONFIG_.*MODULE should find the majority of
offending code. As Keith says, some of it is in the Makefiles, but the
majority is in the code.
--
dwmw2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-05-03 15:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-05-02 14:49 module choices affecting base kernel size??? Tom Oehser
2002-05-02 23:58 ` Keith Owens
2002-05-03 0:57 ` Tom Oehser
2002-05-03 0:01 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-03 1:28 ` Keith Owens
2002-05-03 15:03 ` David Woodhouse
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox