Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I am trying to build my own kernel. I was wondering if choosing to make modules would still use a little space? Can you save space in the kernel by not making the module?
If you make a module it will take disk space, because it's a file laying around but it won't make your kernel any larger - or, if it does, it would be by an utterly insignificant degree. I don't know if it needs a little bit of code as a "plug" so to speak, or not. If you compile it in, then your kernel will be larger. If you do without the capacity altogether, it saves space both ways. If it's something you need, compile it in; if it's something you just want access to, make it a module; if it's something you don't need, leave it out. And, to an extent, this translates into RAM usage. If you compile everything in its going to use more RAM than a stripped kernel while loading it as a module will only use the RAM while its loaded.
At least that's how I understand it. Hope that's right and that it helps.
Originally posted by digiot If you make a module it will take disk space, because it's a file laying around but it won't make your kernel any larger - or, if it does, it would be by an utterly insignificant degree. I don't know if it needs a little bit of code as a "plug" so to speak, or not. If you compile it in, then your kernel will be larger. If you do without the capacity altogether, it saves space both ways. If it's something you need, compile it in; if it's something you just want access to, make it a module; if it's something you don't need, leave it out. And, to an extent, this translates into RAM usage. If you compile everything in its going to use more RAM than a stripped kernel while loading it as a module will only use the RAM while its loaded.
At least that's how I understand it. Hope that's right and that it helps.
Thanks, thats what I figured. I was just wondering how much of an insignificant amount of kernel space it takes up. The problem is self made kernel isnt working yet because I am not absolutly positive of what modules are needed and so forth. So I have a lot of things [M] and I was wondering if that would make my kernel larger. Right now it is about 900kB I would like to see it around 700kB
M will make your kernel smaller and faster but modules will be created on the hd and you'll have to load these modules if you need it (well wrong most of time since kernel load them by itself)
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.