lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1513777158.1538.24.camel@Nokia-N900> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:39:18 +0100 From: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Lukasz Majewski <lukma@...x.de>, Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@...ionengravers.com>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/4] ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Add support for BK3 board Hi Arnd! On Wed Dec 20 14:14:07 2017 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote: > > If it will be still possible to build the binary kernel of the same > > size after the conversion, I'm in for testing, otherwise it will not > > fit into Flash any more... > > I think there is an increase in code size that comes mainly from the > common clock layer itself, plus a few bytes here and there. Obviously > the increase is much bigger if you actually enable multiple platforms. > > Here is the size of the uncompressed vmlinux file with the current > clk implementation, compared to a build with a build containing the > common clk code but no clock driver, and the separate clock > implementation we have today: > > text data bss dec hex filename > 4752655 1036028 128260 5916943 5a490f build/tmp/vmlinux-old-clk > 4780174 1040524 128284 5948982 5ac636 build/tmp/vmlinux-common-clk > 2491 1700 0 4191 105f > build/tmp/arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/clock.o > > The difference would come to about 0.7% of the current image size, > I guess around 1% when the other changes are included. Is that within > the margins you have, or is this already critical? No, your numbers are promising, I was afraid of the increase of other orders of magnitude. So this should be fine. Thanks for this info. -- Alex.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists