[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b27d96fc-b234-4406-8d6e-885cd97a87f3@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 10:15:00 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>, Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@...e.com>
Subject: Re: Large modules with 6.15 [was: [PATCH v4 6/6] percpu/x86: Enable
strict percpu checks via named AS qualifiers]
On 6/5/25 07:27, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> Reverting this gives me back to normal sizes.
>
> Any ideas?
I don't see any reason not to revert it. The benefits weren't exactly
clear from the changelogs or cover letter. Enabling "various compiler
checks" doesn't exactly scream that this is critical to end users in
some way.
The only question is if we revert just this last patch or the whole series.
Uros, is there an alternative to reverting?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists