linux-kernel - Re: [incremental-PATCH-for-Sam's-Review] ACPI: use ccflags-y instead of EXTRA

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090102220105.GB8494@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date:	Fri, 2 Jan 2009 23:01:05 +0100
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [incremental-PATCH-for-Sam's-Review] ACPI: use ccflags-y instead of EXTRA_CFLAGS

On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 10:56:15PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> writes:
> >
> > The conversion from ACPI_CFLAGS to ccflags-y is fine.
> > And if acpi really require -Os then this part is also OK -
> > I just did not get *why* acpi needs -Os
> 
> None of ACPI is performance critical and it's rather large, so it was
> defaulted to -Os long before the rest of the kernel. It's not
> a hard requirement, but a generally good idea.

Wrong wording on my part when I wrote "hard requirement".
I should have said "justified requirement" which you with the above
have proved it is.

Thanks,
	Sam
--
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/