Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:44:30 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: don't compile vsmp_64 for 32bit |
| |
* Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:44:57PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > >* Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 09:20:50PM -0800, Yinghai Lu wrote: > >> > > >> >Impact: cleanup > >> > > >> >that is only needed when CONFIG_X86_VSMP is defined with 64bit > >> >also remove dead code about PCI, because CONFIG_X86_VSMP depends on PCI > >> > > >> >Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> > >> > > >> > >> NAK! > >> vsmp64.c is compiled unconditionally for a reason. There are ifdefs in the > >> file to avoid code compilation based on config options. is_vsmp_box() is > >> needed even when CONFIG_X86_VSMP is not enabled, since distro kernels don't ship > >> with CONFIG_X86_VSMP, and since is_vsmp_box() is used to determine whether > >> tsc's can be considered synced or not, this is needed. > > > >is_vsmp_box() is always available: > > Yes. But it does not really detect if the machine is vsmp. > It is just a 'return 0'. > > > > >> >+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_VSMP > >> > extern int is_vsmp_box(void); > >> >+#else > >> >+static inline int is_vsmp_box(void) > >> >+{ > >> >+ return 0; > >> >+} > >> >+#endif > > > >What this patch does is it reduces the kernel's size when > >CONFIG_X86_VSMP is turned off and also makes the code arguably > >cleaner. > > True, but by how much? 212 bytes, out of 7285943 bytes which > is very very small percentage wise.
How does this eliminate the validity of the patch?
Ingo
| |