[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 04:45:21 +0100 (CET)
From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
To: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
cc: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
jengelh@...putergmbh.de, devzero@....de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bunk@...nel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Force UNIX domain sockets to be built in
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 03:03:20PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
> > > > As suggested by Adrian Bunk, UNIX domain sockets should always be built in
> > > > on normal systems. This is especially true since udev needs these sockets
> > > > and fails to run if UNIX=m.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-Off-By: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
> > >
> > > People who use udev can make sure they have it built into their kernel
> > > if they have such a dependency.
> > >
> > > Not everyone uses udev, and therefore needs AF_UNIX non-modular.
> >
> > That's why I kept this option for embedded folks.
> >
> > Is there any benefit for non-embedded systems from having UNIX=m?
>
> udev-free != embedded.
But UNIX=m == waste RAM and have an effectively b0rken system until the
module is loaded. It would be silly to do this unless you have a very small
space for the kernel image and some free space for storing the needed
modules. The big question is: Is there any non-embedded system where you
have to aim for a small kernel image?
--
Fun things to slip into your budget
Half a million dollars for consultants to design a web site that was being
done by an intern in his spare time.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists