[PATCH] extend physmap.c to support run-time adding partitions
joern at wohnheim.fh-wedel.de
Thu Oct 23 14:15:41 EDT 2003
On Thu, 23 October 2003 10:43:20 -0700, Jun Sun wrote:
> > o All those translate to improvements in the source code. How about the
> > binary? Compile with and without patch and post the kernel image
> > size. And remember that noone will use two map files at the same time
> > in the real world.
> > o Copy and paste is simple. So simple in fact, that everyone does it,
> > as you have observed. Why make it more complicated, unless you have
> > clear advantages.
> ... as if my previous listings are not advantages. :)
They are, no doubt. But there are disadvantages as well.
> > Yes, I like the basic idea, tried to do it myself. But what's the use
> > if all your users care about binary size and that increases?
> I find it hard to belive this patch would increase kernel size.
> Can someone using existing propriatary mapping driver apply this
> patch, switch to use physmap.c, and let us know the size increase?
> How much increase would you start to really care in a typical .5M to 2M
> kernel? 1K or 10K or 100K? I think the increase should be minimum if any.
I don't know and I don't care. You want the patch in, you show the
numbers or convince David otherwise.
All art is but imitation of nature.
-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca
More information about the linux-mtd