Re: [2.6 patch] make UNIX a bool

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 09:28:15PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On 3/2/06, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:31:34PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It does also matter in the kernel image size case, since you have to put
> > > > enough modules to the other medium for having a effect bigger than the
> > > > kernel image size increase from setting CONFIG_MODULES=y.
> > >
> > > That's not very difficult considering the large number of modules that's
> > > out there that a system may wish to use.
> > >...
> >
> > This might be true for full-blown desktop systems - but these do not
> > tend to be the systems where kernel image size matters that much.
> > Smaller kernel image size might be an issue e.g. for distribution
> > kernels, but in a much less pressing way.
> >
> > The systems where kernel image size really matters are systems with few
> > modules where you know in advance which modules you might need. I played
> > a bit with the ARM defconfigs, and if you consider that you can't build
> > the filesystem for accessing your modules modular I haven't found any
> > where making everything modular would have given a real kernel image
> > size gain compared to the CONFIG_MODULES=n case.
> >
> 
> I believe the basic question is this: What do we win by making
> CONFIG_UNIX a bool?
>...

We do not have to export symbols we don't want to export to modules but 
needed by CONFIG_UNIX.

> Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed