Re: [ANNOUNCE] -tiny tree for small systems (2.6.0-test11)

[Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 08:44:43AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 09:37:34PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> 
> > This is the first release of a new kernel tree dubbed '-tiny' (someone
> > already took -mm). The aim of this tree is to collect patches that
> > reduce kernel disk and memory footprint as well as tools for working
> > on small systems, an area Linux mainstream has been moving away from
> > since Linus got a real job. Target users are things like embedded
> > systems, small or legacy desktop folks, and handhelds.
> > 
> > To get the ball rolling, I've thrown in about 50 patches that trim
> > various bits of the kernel, almost all configurable, and a fair number
> > may eventually be appropriate for mainline. All the config options are
> > currently thrown under CONFIG_EMBEDDED and many of the minor tweaks
> > are covered under a set of config options called CONFIG_CORE_SMALL,
> > CONFIG_NET_SMALL, and CONFIG_CONSOLE_SMALL.
> > 
> > Nifty things I've included:
> >  - building with -Os
> >  - 4k process stacks (via -wli)
> >  - configurable removal of printk, BUG, and panic() strings
> >  - configurable HZ
> >  - configurable support for vm86, core dumps, kcore, sysfs, aio, etc.
> >  - a very nice kmalloc auditing system via /proc/kmalloc
> >  - auditing of bootmem usage
> >  - a system for counting inline instantiations
> >  - my netpoll/netconsole patches
> >  - my drivers/char/random fixups
> 
> I'd like to suggest you check out the "tweaks" idea I tossed out here:
> http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0211.0/2229.html
> If this sounds interesting, I've got a version of the patch (albeit old
> and not applying directly right now I bet) that moved things into header
> files and got all of the dependancy stuff correct except for the initial
> run (so I think I was forcing an update with any make invocation, but
> there were no spurious recompiles).

Looks cool. My only worry is that to do it right, it has to make some
fairly sweeping changes. I'm trying to keep the stuff in -tiny fairly
small and independent so that stuff can be cherry-picked, but if we
can get a consensus that "tweaks" is a good direction for mainline, it
might prove useful for some of the stuff I'm doing with
CONFIG_CORE_SMALL and friends now. 

-- 
Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : Linux development and consulting