Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 29 Apr 2006 16:40:43 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] catch valid mem range at onlining memory |
| |
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@in.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > All the code bloat's a bit sad though. It would have been nice to have > > > made the type of resource.start and .end Kconfigurable. What happened > > > to that? > > > > Hm, I didn't remember anything about that. Vivek, any thoughts? > > > > Having resource size configurable is nice but it brings added complexity > with it. The question would be if code bloat is significant enough to > go for other option. Last time I had posted few compilation results on > i386. I am summarizing these again. > > allmodconfig (CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=n) > ----------- > > vmlinux bloat:4096 bytes > > allyesconfig (CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO=n) > ----------- > > vmlinux size bloat: 52K > > So even with allyesconfig total bloat is 52K and I am assuming the > systems where memory is at premium are going to use a very limited set > of modules and effectively will see much lesser code bloat than 52K. > > For Kconfigurable resource size, probably dma_addr_t is not the very > appropriate as at lots of places size also needs to be 64 bit and > using dma_addr_t is not good. This will then boil down to introducing > a new type like dma_addr_t whose size is Kconfigurable.
Yes, it would need to to be a new type - resource_addr_t, perhaps.
> Even if it is done, it will not get rid of code bloat completely as lots > of code bloat comes from printk() statemets where we explicitly typecast > the resource to (unsigned long long) to avoid compilation warnings across > the platforms. This typecasting will continue to be there even with > Kconfigurable resources.
True.
But you know, just because a printk is present doesn't actually mean that it's useful.
IOW, the default should be to just delete the printks (or the resource.start/end parts of them), and to grudgingly put them back if someone screams loudly enough. We have other ways of viewing the iomem_resource and ioport_resource trees.
> Personally I would tend to think that we can live with this code bloat.
Every little bit counts ;) We tend to be a bit obsessive about this, but I think it's good, although perhaps wasteful of developer time..
I wouldn't view any of this as blocking the present patches. It's a separable project. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |