[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.0.999.0712311335210.3761@be1.lrz>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:26:42 +0100 (CET)
From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
cc: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>, devzero@....de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Force UNIX domain sockets to be built in
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 01:09:43PM +0100, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > 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>
> >
> > ---
> > Last minute change: I decided against making it a bool because embedded
> > folks might depend on a small kernel image. Edited in the patch below.
> >...
>
> Is this just a purely theoretical thought or is this a reasonable use
> case people actually use in practice?
For now, it's a theoretical thought, but having an embedded device, I can
see the reason for $EVERYTHING=m there.
> After all, changing it to a bool will allow us to make the kernel image
> for nearly everyone smaller by a few hundred bytes...
I can't see why optionally building it as a module would force us to make
the kernel bigger. It may be a little more ugly to support =m, but thats it,
isn't it?
--
Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence...
--
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