Reasons 1 and 2 were that you can't be sure it works on all compiler versions
and all platforms until you'e tried it, which you could say about anything.
Reason 3, 5, and 6 were about performance gains, when the point of CONFIG_TINY
is, in fact, size.
Reason 4 is inertia. You are explicitly considering inertia a good reason,
then? I remember back around 1998, the argument over "-fno-strength-reduce"
which accomplished nothing whatsoever (and was in fact disabled in gcc 2.7.x
for i386) but was in the kernel compile for a long time becaue nobody could
be bothered to remove it...
> So why do we want to force it on for CONFIG_TINY?
1) The point of CONFIG_TINY is size?
2) Why is any change a "force" when you have the source code? Isn't "force"
an intentionally loaded word? I could just as easily say your objection
still boils down to "I don't want a switch that actually does something, I
want somebody to print out a to-do list and mail it to me so I can go through
the kernel by hand and remove support for floppy drives other than the actual
type I have from the legacy boot sector at the start of the kernel image."
If you want to get into loaded words.
The setting in question is a default value. CONFIG_TINY sets a lot of
defaults at once, and gives you something grep for if you don't like them. I
realise this isn't what you want, but objecting to patches because they're
completely unrelated to what you want is kind of silly.
Rob
-- http://penguicon.sf.net - Terry Pratchett, Eric Raymond, Pete Abrams, Illiad, CmdrTaco, liquid nitrogen ice cream, and caffienated jello. Well why not? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/