Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:15:00 +0100
> Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@bull.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 10:32:31 +0100 Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@bull.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>it builds fine, modulo some changes in ipv4 and ipv6 (see attached patch 
>>>>- didn't find it in the hot fixes).
>>>
>>>
>>>OK, thanks for checking.  Did you confirm that we don't have unneeded code
>>>in vmlinux when CONFIG_PROCFS=n?  I guess before-and-after comparison of
>>>the size(1) output would tell us.
>>>
>>>Those networking build problems appear to have already been fixed.
>>>
>>>In future, please quote the compiler error output in the changelog when
>>>sending build fixes or warning fixes, thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>BEFORE:
>>
>>lkernel@akt$ size vmlinux
>>    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>>4318525  454484  462848 5235857  4fe491 vmlinux
>>
>>
>>AFTER:
>>
>>lkernel@akt$ size vmlinux
>>    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>>4323161  454484  462848 5240493  4ff6ad vmlinux
>>
>>which makes it +4636 = +0.11%
>>
>>I've got the details for */built-in.o if needed.
>>
> 
> 
> That seems to be a lot of increase.  Are you sure you had CONFIG_PROCFS=n
> in both cases?  If so, the patch must have added a lot of code which will
> never be executed?
> 
> 
> 
Well, the patches that are impacted by procfs being configured or not 
are #7 and #8. While the sizes I've sent you are before all patches 
applied vs after all patches applied :-(

So here are the "interesting sizes" - all with CONFIG_PROC_FS unset:

before patch 7:
    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
4318757  454484  462848 5236089  4fe579 vmlinux

before patch 8:
    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
4318853  454484  462848 5236185  4fe5d9 vmlinux    +96

after patch 8:
4319055  454484  462848 5236387  4fe6a3 vmlinux    +202

The higher difference after patch 8 is because I'm adding the new 
interface blocking_notifier_chain_cond_register() even if CONFIG_PROC_FS 
is not defined. This is to cover the case where msgmni is set through 
the sysctl() syscall (CONFIG_SYSCTL_SYSCALL).

Regards,
Nadia

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers