Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 May 2008 02:01:21 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] build kernel/profile.o only when requested |
| |
On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:53:06 +0300 Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> Build kernel/profile.o only if CONFIG_PROFILING is enabled. > > This makes CONFIG_PROFILING=n kernels smaller. > > As a bonus, some profile_tick() calls and one branch from schedule() are > now eliminated with CONFIG_PROFILING=n (but I doubt these are > measurable effects). > > This patch changes the effects of CONFIG_PROFILING=n, but I don't think > having more than two choices would be the better choice. > > This patch also adds the name of the first parameter to the prototypes > of profile_{hits,tick}() since I anyway had to add them for the dummy > functions. >
Little nits:
> index 05c1cc7..4081fa3 100644 > --- a/include/linux/profile.h > +++ b/include/linux/profile.h > @@ -8,8 +8,6 @@ > > #include <asm/errno.h> > > -extern int prof_on __read_mostly; > - > #define CPU_PROFILING 1 > #define SCHED_PROFILING 2 > #define SLEEP_PROFILING 3 > @@ -19,14 +17,29 @@ struct proc_dir_entry; > struct pt_regs; > struct notifier_block; > > +#if defined(CONFIG_PROFILING) && defined(CONFIG_PROC_FS) > +void create_prof_cpu_mask(struct proc_dir_entry *);
This omits the argument's name, whereas elsewhere you have taken care to introduce the name where it was missing.
> +#else > +#define create_prof_cpu_mask(x) do { (void)(x); } while (0)
I think this could be a static inline, which is neater.
I wonder why create_prof_cpu_mask() is called only by s390. I suppose I should I should get the historical-git tree onto this machine and find out.
| |