Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:29:55 -0700 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org> Cc: "current@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [Fwd: What do people think about not installing a stripped /kernel ?] Message-ID: <20041020172955.GG11477@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <41769E70.4020808@FreeBSD.org> References: <41767CF1.2020005@FreeBSD.org> <20041020165900.GB834@alex.lan> <41769E70.4020808@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 08:20:48PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Let me clarify it down: it is only applies to HEAD, that is, unstable > branch, which can be inheretedly buggy. STABLE/RELEASE doesn't really > need this feature. This dismisses the following objections: I think it's more important in HEAD, but personally I would like to ship this way. It has the potential to vastly improve the quality of bug reports. That's not my call though. > 1. HDD size constrains: nobody really want to run unpatched HEAD on CF > or the like, since with HEAD you are expected to re-compile more than often. > > 2. / partition size: anybody running HEAD is expected to allow this > accomodate debugging kernel. > > 3. Additional slowdown: since it is adds up to 10 seconds (I bet that > even less on a modern system) who cares? This is HEAD, so that it is > expected to be sub-optimal performance-wise. I seriously doubt it's measurable. If it is, the loader is broken. :-) We're talking about reading a section header and doing a seek for each ELF section we don't care about (all the ones that bloat the file relative to the stripped version.) -- Brooks
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041020172955.GG11477>