> Does the linux-tiny approach of adding a kconfig variable for > each 5kB of code actually make sense? I'm asking since an > exploding amount of kconfig variables and their > interdependencies have a not so small maintainance impact in > the long term. I don't want to answer for the general case, but I can answer for my specific case. My device has Intel Strataflash, which have 256 kB size of erase-sectors. I reserved one sector for u-boot (which is plenty) and 4 for linux --- which uses to be plenty in the 2.4.21 days. It is no longer plenty, some years ago I switched one of the targets to 2.6.15. The 4 sectors still were ok. Some months ago I switched to 2.6.24/2.6.25 and now space is VERY scarce. Just yesterday, when I trashed unionfs because of some misbehavior I couldn't fix by myself and went with aufs. Now my kernel suddenly became 14 kB too big for my device. Now, tiny-linux patches are at 2.6.23, but I could still adapt a bunch of them to 2.6.25 and with that and some changed configs my headroom is now again 26460 bytes. Unfortunately, my custom boot logo had to go :-/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
