On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 02:14:14PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:58:29AM -0700, Lombard, David N wrote: > > On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 01:28:36PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > > > On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:11:30AM -0700, Lombard, David N wrote: > > > > The current (20080324) kexec binary on x86 is 135KiB. While not a > > > > problem on a normal distro or runtime environment, it's a chubster > > > > in an embedded role. > > > > > > > > Has any thought been given to reducing its 'on-disk' footprint? > > > > The rather obvious, non-default build-time options to only support > > > > specific kernel types and capabilities, jumps to mind. > > > > > > > > Beyond build-time options, a Busybox applet would further minimize > > > > size, but maintenance would be painful... > > > > > > > Busybox is precisely what I use to implement kdump in RHEL at the moment. Its > > > still a bit bloated, since it is meant for enterprise servers, but it makes it > > > very easy to customize very small initramfs files for specific purposes. > > > > Hmmm... Don't see a kexec or kdump in busybox-1.10.1. Is this in git? > > > > What did you do to reduce binary size? I don't really care about process > > size, as I'm not working with memory-constrained systems. > > ... > If your goal is to simply reduce the size of the kexec binary, I think an old > fashioned audit is in order. Theres plenty of space to be saved too, I think. > In particular there are lots of error checks that are re-created that could be > made common. Agreed... -- David N. Lombard, Intel, Irvine, CA I do not speak for Intel Corporation; all comments are strictly my own.
