> To a large extent, I agree. I certainly don't want to focus solely on
quoted text
> code size; there's a lot more to embedded Linux than that. But it _is_

Not only code size, far more important is dynamic memory consumption.
[admittedly we right now lack a good instrumentation framework for this]

quoted text
> There are some cases where we really _do_ want to have CONFIG options,
> but I agree that we should keep them to a minimum. And when we _do_ have
> CONFIG options, they don't have to litter the actual code with ifdefs.

The problem I see is more that really nobody can even compile not 
alone test all these combinations anymore. Hidding the problem in inlines
does not solve that. And no randconfig is not the solution either.

quoted text
> > of years ago with some numbers 
> > (http://halobates.de/memory.pdf and http://halobates.de/memorywaste.pdf) 
> > And CONFIG is definitely not the right way to approach that, the right
> > way is better data structures, better algorithms to size tables, just
> > some general care etc.
> 
> Stuff like shrinking the rbtree structure by encoding the colour in the
> low bits of the parent pointer, perhaps? :)

Whatever pays off.

-Andi
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/