> On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 21:31 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 08:14:12PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 05 September 2007 19:38, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > > > > You version doesn't work with CONFIG_MODULES right?
> > > > >
> > > > > It works with CONFIG_MODULES.
> > > >
> > > > Really? Take a look at this version,
> > > >
> > > >
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/6/4/169
> > > >
> > > > Marcello had to implement a two pass build to add back symbol used in
> > > > modules which got removed from the main kernel.. You don't appear to do
> > > > that. Marcelo also claims better size reduction than you.
> > >
> > > This will discard EXPORT_SYMBOLs potentially used by
> > > out-of-tree modules.
> > >
> > > I also saw ~10% size reductions, but then at run-time test modules
> > > failed to load, they didn't find needed symbols.
> > >
> > > OTOH if I know that I am not going to be using such modules,
> > > then this can be done. Will require another CONFIG_xxx, though.
> >
> > One point to keep in mind is that the space penalty of CONFIG_MODULES=y
> > is so big that CONFIG_MODULES=n is actually the most interesting case
> > for small systems that really need small kernels.
>
> Marcelo's version actual deals with the CONFIG_MODULES=y penalty , which
> is interesting to me .. It removes symbols added for CONFIG_MODULES
> which actually aren't used .. So CONFIG_MODULES=y is just as interesting
> as without (to me at least..).
