On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidl...@hp.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 19:56 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 01:53:01PM -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote: >> > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 3:35 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > Now in general, I don't particularly like such superfluous changes, so >> > > unless you can show that GCC actually generates better code, I'd prefer >> > > to keep things as they are. >> > >> > Fixed and checked the assembly. It saves us 2 bytes of code, not much. I >> > am not sure if that is worth it :( >> >> still 2 bytes, so sure. >> >> Which gcc did you use and what arch did you build? That might be useful >> info for the changelog. > > Yeah, please attach the output of 'size kernel/locking/rwsem.o' for both > before and after. I think there's similar opportunity in other locking > code as well. >
Ok. Here is the data. size kernel/locking/rwsem-spinlock.o Before change to bool: text data bss dec hex 1336 0 0 1336 538 After change to bool: text data bss dec hex 1334 0 0 1334 536 -- Pranith -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
