On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 07:03:50PM +0800, Bean wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:30:38PM +0800, Bean wrote: > >> > >> The fd and hd device share many code, separating them is not a good > >> idea. > > > > If code duplication is a problem, we could link the same code staticaly for > > each module. Size of biosdisk module is an issue, because it's always used > > in core.img, but size of floppy module isn't, because it's never needed for > > bootstrap. > > > >> Perhaps what we need is a way to optionally disable the floppy > >> device, for example, with a variable such as no_floppy. > > > > But that makes biosdisk bigger, not smaller :-( > > Hi, > > Is size really that important ? I think even if you split the module, > it would only save very little space, which doesn't matter in the big > picture, unless you have a situation where the current size is very > closed to the upper limit.
No, not really.. I think I'm being overzealous. I'll see about using that variable. > In that case, I suggest more dramatic > action, like replacing lzo with a strong compression algorithm, like > lzma, which would save a few thousand bytes. I recall this being discussed before. Possibly this would make the decompressor bigger, too. Did you check the trade-off is good? -- Robert Millan <GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call! <DRM> What good is a phone call… if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
