Re: [PATCH] 2.2: /proc/config.gz

From: Nathan Paul Simons (
Date: Thu Aug 31 2000 - 08:24:28 EST

On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 02:46:36PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > where you overwrite your old kernel image with a new one without
> > rebooting instantly).
> >
> > But is it so much more expensive than a /proc/config.whatever ?
> Use that argument 50 times and your kernel has grown 100K. Unfortunately
> everyone keeps using the argument and forgetting the cumulative effect

        i agree with Alan, and for more than just the above reason. One of
the rules of thumb where i work is "keep that sh*t out of our kernel!". i
don't see what the problem is with just putting the config file in a common
place and adding an extension to the end of it, ie
/boot/config-2.4.0-test1-dbg. And it works for the argument of different
kernel configs with the same kernel version. Since you will probably be
changing the EXTRAVERSION variable anyway (to differentiate between different
kernels, System.maps, and module dirs), just add the full version info to
the end of the name of the config file. A lot of distributions do it this
way, and i've never had problems with it.
        As for the argument of putting it in the kernel being more robust and
idiot-proof, well, if someone can't keep three files and one directory
straight for each different configuration of the kernel that they want to
play with, they probably shouldn't be configuring and compiling kernels in
the first place. You can't idiot-proof the world, and even if you could, some
things really shouldn't be.

Nathan Paul Simons, Programmer for FSMLabs
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 21:00:27 EST