lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch] generic-hardirqs.patch, 2.6.9-rc1-bk14

    * Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:

    > > wrt. unused generic functions - why dont we drop them link-time?
    >
    > make explicit what you can do easily instead of relying on the
    > compiler. It allows to get rid of your horrible generic_ hacks, cuts
    > down compile time and makes explicit to anyone looking at the code and
    > Kconfig which architectures use this.

    i disagree. It's the same as the VFS model: we have generic_block_bmap()
    which a filesystem might or might not make use of. It's still around
    even if no filesystem makes use of it but do we care? I'd prefer fixing
    our linking logic to get rid of unused functions than complicating code
    and the architecture with conditionals.

    is there any architecture that cannot make use of kernel/hardirq.c _at
    all_?

    Ingo
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:0.022 / U:0.680 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site