[ltp] Re: gentoo
Harold Pimentel
linux-thinkpad@linux-thinkpad.org
Sun, 26 Jul 2009 06:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
--0-995154918-1248615867=:84984
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I second that.
Uh-oh. Do I hear yet another gentoo vs "generic kernel" battle approaching?=
lol
--- On Sun, 7/26/09, Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net> wrote:
From: Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net>
Subject: [ltp] Re: gentoo
To: linux-thinkpad@linux-thinkpad.org
Date: Sunday, July 26, 2009, 2:41 AM
Tim Tebbit <ttebbit@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> I know using the generic kernel was a pretty big waste but that was also =
my
> first kernel build and I was happy enough that succeeded.
No, it isn't.=C2=A0 At least, a generic kernel build that puts most of the =
drivers
in modules wastes nothing except, perhaps, a tiny (by modern standards) bit=
of
disk space.
The kernel automatically selects machine and CPU specific optimizations at
runtime when compiled for a "generic" target, so you gain pretty much nothi=
ng,
and give up flexibility, if you try and reduce that.
Likewise, drivers as modules means that you don't lose anything at runtime =
for
drivers you don't use, and pay only a very small price to have udev
automatically load the drivers you do need.
In return you have much greater flexibility if you, for example, ever chang=
e
your laptop for a newer model, since you can just pick up the installation =
and
drop it wholesale into the new hardware without too much trouble.[1]
> I pretty much followed the handbook word for word and ended up with a fai=
rly
> generic system I believe.=C2=A0 So, anymore of us out there? And what tip=
s can
> you pass for optimal configuration options for the T61?
Don't waste your time searching for that fractionally faster set of compile=
r
flags; the return on your investment will never be paid off for anything
day-to-day.
Regards,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Daniel
Footnotes:=20
[1]=C2=A0 By which I mean: with only the standard trouble that the boot loa=
der
=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0implies, plus reconfiguring older software like X =
that hard-codes the
=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0boot process.=C2=A0 Plus, perhaps, rebuilding the =
initramfs if you were silly
=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0enough to limit the drivers it contained rather th=
an shoving them all in
=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0there.
--=20
=E2=9C=A3 Daniel Pittman=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =E2=9C=89=
daniel@rimspace.net=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =E2=98=8E +61=
401 155 707
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=E2=99=BD made =
with 100 percent post-consumer electrons
--=20
The linux-thinkpad mailing list home page is at:
http://mailman.linux-thinkpad.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-thinkpad
=0A=0A=0A
--0-995154918-1248615867=:84984
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<table cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" border=3D"0" ><tr><td valign=3D"=
top" style=3D"font: inherit;">I second that.<br><br>Uh-oh. Do I hear yet an=
other gentoo vs "generic kernel" battle approaching? lol<br><br>--- On <b>S=
un, 7/26/09, Daniel Pittman <i><daniel@rimspace.net></i></b> wrote:<b=
r><blockquote style=3D"border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left=
: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><br>From: Daniel Pittman <daniel@rimspace.net=
><br>Subject: [ltp] Re: gentoo<br>To: linux-thinkpad@linux-thinkpad.org<=
br>Date: Sunday, July 26, 2009, 2:41 AM<br><br><div class=3D"plainMail">Tim=
Tebbit <<a ymailto=3D"mailto:ttebbit@gmail.com" href=3D"/mc/compose?to=
=3Dttebbit@gmail.com">ttebbit@gmail.com</a>> writes:<br><br>[...]<br><br=
>> I know using the generic kernel was a pretty big waste but that was a=
lso my<br>> first kernel build and I was happy enough that succeeded.<br=
><br>No, it isn't. At least, a generic kernel build that puts most of=
the
drivers<br>in modules wastes nothing except, perhaps, a tiny (by modern st=
andards) bit of<br>disk space.<br><br>The kernel automatically selects mach=
ine and CPU specific optimizations at<br>runtime when compiled for a "gener=
ic" target, so you gain pretty much nothing,<br>and give up flexibility, if=
you try and reduce that.<br><br>Likewise, drivers as modules means that yo=
u don't lose anything at runtime for<br>drivers you don't use, and pay only=
a very small price to have udev<br>automatically load the drivers you do n=
eed.<br><br>In return you have much greater flexibility if you, for example=
, ever change<br>your laptop for a newer model, since you can just pick up =
the installation and<br>drop it wholesale into the new hardware without too=
much trouble.[1]<br><br>> I pretty much followed the handbook word for =
word and ended up with a fairly<br>> generic system I believe. So,=
anymore of us out there? And what tips can<br>> you pass for
optimal configuration options for the T61?<br><br>Don't waste your time se=
arching for that fractionally faster set of compiler<br>flags; the return o=
n your investment will never be paid off for anything<br>day-to-day.<br><br=
>Regards,<br> Daniel<br><br>Footnotes: <br>[1]&n=
bsp; By which I mean: with only the standard trouble that the boot loader<b=
r> implies, plus reconfiguring older software like =
X that hard-codes the<br> boot process. Plus,=
perhaps, rebuilding the initramfs if you were silly<br> =
enough to limit the drivers it contained rather than shoving them all=
in<br> there.<br><br>-- <br>=E2=9C=A3 Daniel Pittm=
an =E2=9C=89 <a ymailto=3D"mailto:=
daniel@rimspace.net" href=3D"/mc/compose?to=3Ddaniel@rimspace.net">daniel@r=
imspace.net</a> =E2=98=8E +61 401 =
155 707<br>
=E2=99=BD made with 1=
00 percent post-consumer electrons<br><br>-- <br>The linux-thinkpad mailing=
list home page is at:<br><a href=3D"http://mailman.linux-thinkpad.org/mail=
man/listinfo/linux-thinkpad" target=3D"_blank">http://mailman.linux-thinkpa=
d.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-thinkpad</a><br></div></blockquote></td></tr><=
/table><br>=0A=0A=0A=0A
--0-995154918-1248615867=:84984--