[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080212083323.6d579dc3@crazy>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:33:23 +0100
From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
To: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Linux-tiny@...enic.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Configure out DMI scanning code
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your review.
Le Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:01:18 -0600,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com> a écrit :
> Looks ok. Please preserve original authorship (ie me) in some fashion
> in your description.
Andrew seems to already have picked up the patch in -mm (I received an
e-mail + x86-configurable-dmi-scanning-code.patch added to -mm tree).
If I resend a new one with proper credits, will Andrew pick it up and
replace the old version by the new version ?
> > On top of this patch, I've tested if removing the big dmi tables in
> > the code (for example in arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c) would allow to
> > make more space optimizations. However, it seems that simply
> > defining dmi_check_system() to an empty static inlined function
> > already allows gcc to optimize out the dmi tables, because there
> > are not present in the code. Is that possible, or is my
> > understanding incorrect ?
>
> That's possible with modern gccs, yes.
I was compiling with 4.2.3, which I suppose is a modern gcc.
Thanks,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Free Embedded Linux Training Materials
on http://free-electrons.com/training
(More than 1500 pages!)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (190 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists