On Sun, 20 April 2008 16:19:29 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:It is not uncommon for embedded systems to be designed around 16MiB. Some may even have less, although I haven't encountered any of those lately. When dealing in those dimensions, savings of 100k are substantial. In some causes they may be the difference between 16MiB or 32MiB, which translates to manufacturing costs. In others it simply means that the system can cache a bit more and run faster, or it can have a little more functionality. In most cases it simply allows userspace programmers to avoid looking harder to save those 100k, as they are already saved in kernel space. Therefore we made life hard for us in order to make life easier for someone else, saving them time and money. Whether that is worth it depends on your personal point of view. Many embedded people will claim "Hell yes!" Of those that don't, most are simply ignoring currently mainline kernels and will regret the development later. They care, thay just don't tend to care enough to engage in these discussions or even know about them. :( Jörn -- Eighty percent of success is showing up. -- Woody Allen --
| Joe Perches | [PATCH 143/148] include/asm-x86/vm86.h: checkpatch cleanups - formatting only |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: Back to the future. |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 004/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingPatches |
| Trent Piepho | [PATCH] [POWERPC] Improve (in|out)_beXX() asm code |
git: | |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 |
