[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201111042328.43358.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 23:28:43 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: len.brown@...el.com, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Deepthi Dharwar <deepthi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Robert Lee <rob.lee@...aro.org>, hpa@...ux.intel.com,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
patches@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pm: remove useless array definition in cpuidle_structure
Len, Arjan,
On Friday, November 04, 2011, Deepthi Dharwar wrote:
> On Friday 04 November 2011 03:14 AM, Robert Lee wrote:
> > From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
> >
> > All the modules name are ro-data, it is never copied to the array.
> >
> > eg.
> >
> > static struct cpuidle_driver intel_idle_driver = {
> > .name = "intel_idle",
> > .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > };
> >
> > It safe to assign the pointer of this ro-data to a const char *.
> > By this way we save 12 bytes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Robert Lee <rob.lee@...aro.org>
> > ---
> > include/linux/cpuidle.h | 4 ++--
> > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/cpuidle.h b/include/linux/cpuidle.h
> > index b51629e..16f9dce 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/cpuidle.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/cpuidle.h
> > @@ -117,8 +117,8 @@ static inline int cpuidle_get_last_residency(struct cpuidle_device *dev)
> > ****************************/
> >
> > struct cpuidle_driver {
> > - char name[CPUIDLE_NAME_LEN];
> > - struct module *owner;
> > + const char *name;
> > + struct module *owner;
> > };
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE
>
> This looks good, and makes it fool-proof by not allowing one to tamper the name of the driver.
> Tested OK on x86 (both Intel idle and ACPI)
>
> Tested-by: Deepthi Dharwar <deepthi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Deepthi Dharwar <deepthi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
This is simple enough for me to push it for 3.2, but I woulnd't like to
step on anyone's toes. Please let me know what you think.
Rafael
--
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