That said, I have written a module that will store the contents of the
.config file, and make it available as /proc/config.
Do you think that this is a desirable enough feature to make it into the
mainstream kernel at some point? This _may_ help developers when they ask
a newbie "what options did you configure the kernel with", and they don't
know. If the the consensus is that this would be "A good thing" (tm),
then I'll go ahead and generate a patch for it.
I also have a few questions that came up while I was working on this:
I have seen people go off when somebody says "why don't we put xyz
compression into the kernel?" and they complain that there are too many
compression methods already. Is there a preferred compression mechanism
to use in the kernel?
If I compress the config information, even the largest config file should
fit into one page of memory easily, and then I can make it either an
optional module or a monolithic feature. I'm guessing that it would be
around 1k if the information is compressed. (Desperatly trying for the
smallest footprint possible to avoid the bloat argument!)
Would fs/proc be the best place for this to live, similar to openpromfs?
And what tools can I assume that a kernel build machine has? I know that
the NCR SCSI drivers use perl during the build, so is that a safe
assumption? Or should I stick to fairly "standard" utilities like
sed/awk/bash and friends for scripting tools?
Thanks,
Andrew
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Andrew Anderson http://amelia.db.erau.edu/~andrew/
if(!(family_tree=fork())){redneck=TRUE;}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu