Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 22:39:07 +0200 (CEST) From: Marius Bendiksen <mbendiks@eunet.no> To: Boris Popov <bp@butya.kz> Cc: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Conditionally removing cosmetic messages for small kernels (PICOBSD). Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10008022236560.34784-100000@login-1.eunet.no> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.10007180652010.78682-100000@lion.butya.kz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> This is also related to the identcpu.c and i686_mem.c files. While > building a very small kernel (nanobsd :) for i486 based system I've noted > that i686_mem.c compiled always regardless of 'cpu' keyword in the config > file (why one need it on 486...). Similarly, identcpu.c code can reduced > by excluding probes and corresponding messages for Pentiums if one needs > only i486 support. Along the same note, it seems a large portion of the UFS foo is built, even if you have no UFS (FFS,MFS,EXT2FS,NFS,...) in your kernel. I ran into this in connection with looking at a working MSDOSFS_ROOT. > A more general question: should we allow more options to exclude > optional and obsolete parts of the kernel ? For example, I've ripped out > aout, aio and jail related code without any effect on functionality for my > particular system. Yes, please. The more stuff we can cut from the system, the better. This will allow us to squeeze the system further in size (attobsd?) and yield precious pages of cache for low-memory systems. Not to mention the build time issue. Marius To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.10008022236560.34784-100000>