On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 02:39:24PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 02:04:46PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> For a config option that no one has come forward with an actual real > >> world use case for disabling, that cost seems much too high. > > > > The real-world use case is precisely as stated: code size, both storage > > and RAM. > > That is theoretical. No, it isn't. I've *watched* the kernel's size trend steadily upward over time. And it largely happens in individual features that don't think *their* contribution to size is all that large. > > I regularly encounter systems I'd *like* to put Linux in that have > > around 1MB of storage and 1MB of RAM, or even less. > > Yes. There is so little code behind CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTART that it > won't help with that. It adds up; there are hundreds more small features like it. > But if minification is the actual requirement for disabling > CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTART than CONFIG_CHECKPIONT_RESTART is properly > behind expert and it needs to be default y instead of default n. I don't have any objection to *that*, as long as the option remains. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
