<linux-s...@vger.kernel.org> Message-ID: <ea3b4ec8-5e29-4da3-b826-52aba92d7...@joshtriplett.org>
On January 4, 2015 8:14:16 AM PST, "Paul E. McKenney" <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 08:35:52PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> On Tue, 2014-12-30 at 13:54 -0500, Pranith Kumar wrote: >> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Peter Zijlstra ><pet...@infradead.org> wrote: >> > > On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:46:22AM -0500, Pranith Kumar wrote: >> > >> Isolate the SRCU functions and data structures within >CONFIG_SRCU so that there >> > >> is a compile time failure if srcu is used when not enabled. This >was decided to >> > >> be better than waiting until link time for a failure to occur. >> > > >> > > Why? >> > >> > This is part of the kernel tinification efforts. The first patch >was >> > posted here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/4/848. This patch >enables a >> > compile time failure instead of a link time failure. >> >> The punch line was: >> >> "so the savings are about ~2000 bytes." >> >> Which is utterly not worth the effort IMO. There have got to be more >attractive >> targets for tinification than this. > >There probably are. But if the tinification effort is to come anywhere >near reaching its goals, it is going to need 2000-byte savings, >especially >on the small systems that are this effort's main target. > >That said, Peter's suggestion of falling back to the link-time >diagnostic >does simplify things a bit, and might be a good approach. Agreed on both fronts; I don't think we should add any significant complexity just to turn link errors into compile errors. - Josh Triplett _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
