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

[Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 09:59:48AM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> 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. 

Well part of the problem that came up when this was brought up during
2.5 is that adding a whole bunch of CONFIG options for things Just Won't
Happen (too complex, PITA, etc).  OTOH however, lots of stuff like that
keeps getting in.

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