lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:43:49 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...lanox.co.il> To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, openib-general@...nib.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: don't pull in includes when lockdep disabled Quoting r. Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>: > Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: don't pull in includes when lockdep disabled > > On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 09:26 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > Ingo, does the following look good to you? > > > > Do not pull in various includes through lockdep.h if lockdep is disabled. > > Hi, > > can you tell us what this fixes? Eg is there a specific problem? Er ... it's a cosmetic change - there's no serious problem, it is just that even if I disable lockdep, linux/lockdep.h will pull in several headers even though they are not needed -> more useless work for compiler to do. > I mean... we're adding ifdefs Note this doesn't add ifdefs, just moves them around. > so there better be a real good reason for > them.... fixing something real would be such a reason ;-) Well, I don't expect this specific bit to speed compilation up in any measurable way, but unnecessary includes do have the tendency to accumulate and lead to slower builds ... Is that a reason? -- MST - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists