* Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pi...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > A series that shrinks the .text size of the allnoconfig core Linux kernel
> > from 1MB
> > to 9.9MB in isolation is not proof.
>
> I assume you meant 0.9MB.
0.992 MB actually if we apply the ~8k .text savings. 0.9MB would imply 100k of
savings on an allnoconfig kernel.
> It is no proof of course. But I'm following the well known and proven
> "release early, release often" mantra here... unless this is no longer
> promoted?
I'm following that same pattern: I gave you negative review feedback as early
as
possible. Fragmention of the scheduler ABI increases complexity and has
knock-on
costs - and the kernel size reduction for the usecase you cited are still 1-2
orders of magnitude away from making a practical difference.
> > There will literally have to be two orders of magnitude more patches than
> > that
> > to reach the 32K size envelope, if I (very) optimistically assume that the
> > difficulty to shrink code is constant (which it most certainly is not).
>
> Once again, my goal is _not_ 32KB.
>
> And I don't intend to shrink code. Most of the time I just want to
> _remove_ code. Compiling it out to be precise. The goal of this series
> is all about compiling out code. And to achieve that with the scheduler,
> I simply moved some code to different source files and not including
> those source files in the final build. That keeps the number of #ifdef's
> to a minimum but it makes a big diffstat due to the code movement.
So I'm fine with most of the code movement - let's try this series without any
of
the more controversial bits which should make future arguments easier.
Thanks,
Ingo
