Return-path: Received: from mail-pv0-f174.google.com ([74.125.83.174]:35744 "EHLO mail-pv0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751057Ab0CAXZF (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Mar 2010 18:25:05 -0500 Received: by pva4 with SMTP id 4so676404pva.19 for ; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:25:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <19339.35506.86567.739868@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <19339.35506.86567.739868@gargle.gargle.HOWL> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:24:45 -0800 Message-ID: <43e72e891003011524m4d14bb2ai550f5e07e5a11aa4@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] ath9k: Remove common module To: Sujith Cc: linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Sujith wrote: > All code to be shared between ath9k and ath9k_htc > is part of a common library. This reduces module > proliferation. > > Signed-off-by: Sujith Interesting approach, instead of having two modules you linked lib.o twice to two separate modules, ath9k.ko and ath9k_htc.ko. While this does reduce module proliferation is there any advantage to that over the approach of stuffing these into one common module shared between both? The benefit of doing it as a module is if both are built-in you reduce the final kernel size. On my box with debugging this is 256 KB. Luis