linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 18/20] ceph: debugging

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: <20090717200114.GA6173@basil.fritz.box>
Date:	Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:01:14 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Sage Weil <sage@...dream.net>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/20] ceph: debugging

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:52:33PM -0700, Sage Weil wrote:
> > > 		 ceph_file_part(__FILE__, sizeof(__FILE__)),		\
> > > 		 __LINE__, args);
> > 
> > That seems like a wasteful way to do this -- i bet you could
> > shrink binary size with debugging on considerably if you move
> > the file_part into a function.
> 
> If you mean ceph_file_part shouldn't be inline, definitely.  Beyond that 
> I'm not sure what more to change... it's just a few extra chars on the 
> format string and 2 calls instead of 1?

Yes, but you have hundreds/thousands of these calls don't you?

If you have two calls here instead of one and that costs let's say
20 bytes of code and 1000 calls it's already 20K of binary size.

Perhaps code size is not your highest priority now, but 
obvious inefficiencies like this are not good.

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/