[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48416A56.5010904@zytor.com>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 08:10:14 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
ksummit-2008-discuss@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2008-discuss] RFC: Moving firmware blobs out of the
kernel.
Alan Cox wrote:
>> (*) Not saying that a klibc-based initramfs is necessarily smaller than
>> the in-kernel code it replaces, but the total size is << than the size
>> of the kernel proper, which isn't true when using a full-featured libc.
>
> True but with a vendor hat on thats not usually a problem on modern
> systems and using glibc means less code to maintain, less special cases,
> and more flexibility.
>
> For embedded klibc may well be interesting.
For vendor hat meaning full-blown systems, yes that is true, but for
embedded, or even on some "real" platforms, that definitely matters.
Fundamentally, however, we're never going to have a full-blown libc
environment built out of the kernel tree, as its size would be
comparable or larger than the kernel itself.
-hpa
--
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