Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267555AbUJNWD5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Oct 2004 18:03:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267438AbUJNUqQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:46:16 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:62592 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267170AbUJNSr1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:47:27 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:46:35 -0400 From: Dave Jones To: "Richard B. Johnson" Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , David Howells , Roman Zippel , "Rusty Russell (IBM)" , David Woodhouse , Greg KH , Arjan van de Ven , Joy Latten , lkml - Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Fw: signed kernel modules? Message-ID: <20041014184635.GD18321@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , "Richard B. Johnson" , Geert Uytterhoeven , David Howells , Roman Zippel , "Rusty Russell (IBM)" , David Woodhouse , Greg KH , Arjan van de Ven , Joy Latten , lkml - Kernel Mailing List References: <16349.1097752!349@redhat.com> <17271.1097756056@redhat.com> <20041014155030.GD26025@redhat.com> <20041014182052.GA18321@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1905 Lines: 47 On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 02:30:08PM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > No. I didn't time `make modules`, only `make bzImage`. > `make modules` takes too long to time (really) I don't > want to use any CPU resources which will screw up the > timing and I need to use the computer. You still have to calculate dependancies and such for anything built modular. Also a bunch of code built into the bzImage changes if things are built modular. the two comparisons aren't equal. Additionally, you haven't factored in the fact that 'make dep' is no longer needed. This accounts for a big chunk of time on 2.4 kernel builds. > A wall-clock guess is that `make modules` takes about > an hour on the new system while it takes about 4 minutes > on the old. The new kernel build procedure is truly > horrible for the wall-clock time that is used. > > For oranges vs oranges, if I compile Version 2.4.26 > on a version 2.6.8 OS computer, the compile-time > is within tens of seconds. I'm not complaining about > the resulting kernel code performance, only the > abortion^M^M^M^M^M^Mjunk used to create a new kernel. > It 'make' won't do it, we have a problem and make > needs to be fixed. oranges to oranges means _exactly_ the same options (where they haven't changed from 2.4 -> 2.6) are set/unset. Anything else is totally bogus. If you find things are still taking phenomenally long times to build, then something is wrong somewhere. Don't you find it strange you're the only person to have complained about this ? If it was as big a problem as you're suggesting, those of us who do nothing but build kernels all day would be up in arms. Dave - 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/