From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 5 13:48:20 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70C54106564A; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:48:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C138FC12; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 13:48:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [96.47.65.170]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE7FC46B0D; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 08:48:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 78918B971; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 08:48:19 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 08:48:18 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110714-p8; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201201050848.18414.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Thu, 05 Jan 2012 08:48:19 -0500 (EST) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Adrian Chadd , freebsd-current Subject: Re: Is it possible to make subr_acl_nfs4 and subr_acl_posix1e disabled? X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:48:20 -0000 [ A bit excessive on the cross-posting? arch@ alone was probably fine ] On Thursday, January 05, 2012 2:57:44 am Adrian Chadd wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to slim down the freebsd kernel to fit on some devices with > 4MB of flash. > > Since I'm not using NFS or UFS_ACL, I wondered if that code required. > It turns out I can just build a kernel with those two disabled. > > Would it be possible to remove them from "standard" and make them > optional? Or is there a reason to keep it in base? > If so (eg so things can be kldload'ed that uses the ACL code) can we > make it a build-time option, and/or a pair of loadable kernel modules? NFS doesn't actually use them curently, only UFS and ZFS do. Unfortunately we've yet to make it possible to compile ZFS into the kernel, so you can't make the sys/conf/files bits completely accurate yet (it would be nice to let folks who don't need FFS for a ZFS-only system remove FFS and UFS, but this would break that): Index: files =================================================================== --- files (revision 229491) +++ files (working copy) @@ -2393,8 +2393,9 @@ kern/sched_ule.c optional sched_ule kern/serdev_if.m standard kern/stack_protector.c standard \ compile-with "${NORMAL_C:N-fstack-protector*}" -kern/subr_acl_nfs4.c standard -kern/subr_acl_posix1e.c standard +# XXX: subr_acl_nfs4.c is also used by ZFS +kern/subr_acl_nfs4.c optional ufs_acl +kern/subr_acl_posix1e.c optional ufs_acl kern/subr_autoconf.c standard kern/subr_blist.c standard kern/subr_bus.c standard -- John Baldwin