On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Implementation wise, I would prefer to not have stubs unless it's > explicitly needed. Still one may argue that a built kernel binary > should have the smallest possible footprint, which means stubs should > be added. > > Do you know if there are common understanding among maintainers of how > this should be done? During the kernel summit kernel tinyfication discussion I think the point was made that Josh (who initiated the discussion) did not worry so much about the size of subsystems, as these can always be hacked if need be. He was more worried about core kernel code growing wild. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
