From: Nathaniel McCallum <nathaniel@natemccallum.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Exposing device ids and driver names
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:56:55 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AC4FB77.2090600@natemccallum.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091001184021.GA26875@kroah.com>
On 10/01/2009 02:40 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 02:35:40PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>> On 10/01/2009 02:05 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:01:50PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>>>> On 10/01/2009 12:42 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>> Why not just use the baseline kernel as a model for this. Do a 'make
>>>>> allmodconfig' and then extract the data and publish it that way. No
>>>>> kernel changes are needed, and then any distro can be easily matched up
>>>>> by this based on what they are using. That will save you time in
>>>>> downloading zillions of distro releases, and provide a nice easy way to
>>>>> show what the kernel.org releases support.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, I would not be able to track changes to the kernel in
>>>> this model. Since this is one of my explicit goals (to make sure that
>>>> distro kernel changes get upstream), I think a non-invasive kernel
>>>> modification would be worth the effort.
>>>
>>> But this was an invasive modification, it added space to the kernel
>>> images for no real benifit other than for your tracking tools. That's
>>> not going to fly unless you can find another good use for the change.
>>
>> Which is why I asked for advice for better options. I would prefer a
>> non-invasive modification. I am hoping that someone more familiar with
>> the layer would provide such a suggestion.
>>
>> One potential benefit for moving module info to ELF sections would be
>> the ability to strip kernel modules. As a test, I did this on a recent
>> Fedora rawhide kernel I had lying around. Stripping the modules results
>> in a 43% decrease in size (82M to 47M).
>
> Did those modules have debugging symbols enabled? That seems like a
> large savings for just the module device tables.
It does not appear so (none of the debug sections are present). But I
could be wrong.
Stripping the modules on the penultimate Fedora 11 kernel results in the
same drop in size. I can't imagine why a release kernel would have
anything extra left in the modules (unless it is just by accident).
Nathaniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-01 18:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-10-01 16:40 Exposing device ids and driver names Nathaniel McCallum
2009-10-01 16:42 ` Greg KH
2009-10-01 17:01 ` Nathaniel McCallum
2009-10-01 18:05 ` Greg KH
2009-10-01 18:35 ` Nathaniel McCallum
2009-10-01 18:40 ` Greg KH
2009-10-01 18:56 ` Nathaniel McCallum [this message]
2009-10-01 19:07 ` Greg KH
2009-10-01 19:17 ` Nathaniel McCallum
2009-10-01 21:36 ` Nathaniel McCallum
2009-10-01 17:47 ` Stefan Richter
2009-10-01 18:02 ` Nathaniel McCallum
2009-10-01 18:23 ` Stefan Richter
2009-10-01 18:28 ` Nathaniel McCallum
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4AC4FB77.2090600@natemccallum.com \
--to=nathaniel@natemccallum.com \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox