[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2008 05:48:06 +0100 (CET)
From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: 7eggert@....de, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, 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, David Miller wrote:
> From: Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
> > The big question is: Is there any non-embedded system where you have
> > to aim for a small kernel image?
>
> One some platforms, due to bootloader restrictions or whatever,
> there are hard limits on how large the main kernel image can be.
>
> On sparc64 for example the limit is around 6.5MB
That would be about the size of a complete rescue system. I don't think we
need to worry about unix sockets there, do we?
> But this "big question" isn't the important issue, in fact it's
> tangental and has no bearing on the final decision we make
> here.
>
> Rather, choice is, and taking choice away is bad. I may have a reason
> to make AF_UNIX modular, I might not, but either way taking that
> option away from me is not the right thing to do.
_You_'ll still have the option, because you have selected EMBEDDED=y
(otherwise, you'd miss all other valuable options to cripple your kernel),
while the folks that just care for a working systems will have what they'd
select anyway without being bothered with useless questions.
--
Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say:
5. Just add yourself to the password file and make a directory...
--
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