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'm about to compile a new kernel and I'm already dreading the time it's going to take to make the bzImage file.
Yep, I'm running an ancient and slow laptop, I know. However, I've seen figures of 15 minutes quoted for compiling a kernel on a 500mhz machine. Is it normal that compiling a default version of kernel 2.6.12.3 took 4 hours 20 minutes with my 300mhz?
What options could I look to turn off safely at the config stage?
If by "a default version" you mean a kernel with almost all the options set to "Yes" - then yep, I'd expect a long compile time.
Really, the best thing to do to whittle this down is to start with an empty config, and only say "Yes" to the things you're sure you need. It might take trial and error, but you'll get a much smaller kernel out of it.
A simple way to get a head start is to check what modules are currently running, and assume you need all of them built into your kernel
Quite honestly, I don't think I am up to doing an "opt-in" compile. I would be certain to miss some obscure but vital function ("kernel support for ELF binaries", anyone?) and find myself back at the beginning.
Would it not be safer to do a "make oldconfig" and do some serious weeding of obviously irrelevant hardware modules, for example? I definitely don't use ISDN or Memory Technology Devices or legacy CD-ROMs, so that would be three branches of the tree safely gone, right?
Is there anywhere in particular that the "meat" - ie, a lot of data - is concentrated in the kernel tree?
Either way runs the risk of removing something you shouldn't. Just keep a copy of your current kernel available, and if you foul up, it doesn't matter - just use your safe kernel, and have another go! You'll get there in the end.
It might help to first compile the "probably not needed" parts as loadable modules (if that option is given).
If then all your hardware is working ok with the new kernel, you can basically disable all the modules that are not listed with the "lsmod" command.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.