On Wednesday 30 April 2008 21:11, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 20:22 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew Morton has been saying recently that we need an 'embedded
maintainer', to take responsibility for 'embedded issues' in the core
On Thursday 01 May 2008 12:41, Andi Kleen wrote:
To a large extent, I agree. I certainly don't want to focus solely on
code size; there's a lot more to embedded Linux than that. But it _is_
Not only code size, far more important is dynamic memory consumption.
[admittedly we right now lack
Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
Tim Bird wrote:
I agree. When you say have the application call modprobe directly,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
I simply meant that you can fork and exec modprobe itself (or use
system() but that
would require a working shell). This would save the need
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 07:22:10PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Wednesday 30 April 2008 21:11, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 20:22 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andrew Morton has been saying recently that we need an 'embedded
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 09:12:30PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Monday 23 June 2008 20:57, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
I agree. And if we do want to pay attention to pure code size, there are
other approaches -- like --gc-sections
I have some patches in this area too. Were submitted to
