[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080731135319.GA20212@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:53:19 +0300
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org,
michael@...e-electrons.com, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
matthew@....cx, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/4] Configure out file locking features
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:27:05AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> This patch adds the CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING option which allows to remove
> support for advisory locks. With this patch enabled, the flock()
> system call, the F_GETLK, F_SETLK and F_SETLKW operations of fcntl()
> and NFS support are disabled. These features are not necessarly needed
> on embedded systems. It allows to save ~11 Kb of kernel code and data:
>
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 1125436 118764 212992 1457192 163c28 vmlinux.old
> 1114299 118564 212992 1445855 160fdf vmlinux
> -11137 -200 0 -11337 -2C49 +/-
>
> This patch has originally been written by Matt Mackall
> <mpm@...enic.com>, and is part of the Linux Tiny project.
>...
As I've already said in the past I'm personally not a huge fan of these
patches, but if it brings advantages in real-life situations it's hard
to argue against it.
In which use cases can users safely disable this option, and on what
devices have you verified that CONFIG_FILE_LOCKING=n kernels actually
work in practice?
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
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