Hi Luca, On 04/04/2024 11:27, Luca Fancellu wrote: > > >> On 19 Mar 2024, at 14:58, Michal Orzel <michal.or...@amd.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Luca, >> >> On 12/03/2024 14:03, Luca Fancellu wrote: >>> >>> >>> The user of shm_mem member of the 'struct kernel_info' is only >>> the code managing the static shared memory feature, which can be >>> compiled out using CONFIG_STATIC_SHM, so in case the feature is >>> not requested, that member won't be used and will waste memory >>> space. >>> >>> To address this issue, protect the member with the Kconfig parameter >>> and modify the signature of the only function using it to remove >>> any reference to the member from outside the static-shmem module. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Luca Fancellu <luca.fance...@arm.com> >> Reviewed-by: Michal Orzel <michal.or...@amd.com> >> >> NIT: I always wonder why we have hundreds of functions taking both struct >> domain and >> struct kernel_info as arguments if the latter has the former as its member. >> As you are >> revisiting the function and modifying parameter list, you could take the >> opportunity >> to change it. But you don't have to. > > You are right, can I do this modification as part of patch 3 and this one? > Also, can I keep your R-by > here when doing this change? You can do this as part of patch 3 (afaict there will be no need to modify the argument list in patch 4) and you can keep my Rb.
~Michal
