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.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
