In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,Troy Benjegerdes writes: >The issue I have with libafs being so big is that it is not at all >modular. There is no opportunity for something like rxgkad to be used by >another kernel client, without also including all the other flavors of >RX. Or, for that matter, having the ability to not load rx methods that >aren't in use.
examining the 'size' of the module isnt really a good indicator of the memory in use. we could reduce the size of this portion of afs (there is about 20k that could easily be 'removed': a few large .bss items and getting rid of the large macros). afs uses quite a bit of memory outside of its footprint. try not to worry about it. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
