On 26 March 2015 at 18:53, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 17:37 +0100, Mathias Krause wrote: >> On 26 March 2015 at 17:13, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 13:40 +0100, Mason wrote: >> >> On 25/03/2015 19:01, Joe Perches wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 2015-03-25 at 18:56 +0100, Mason wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> I started wondering if the string literals used in an __init functions >> >> >> were automatically marked __initdata. >> >> >> >> >> > One proposal: >> >> > >> >> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/21/255 >> >> >> >> Basically, if I understand correctly, Ingo NAKed the patch, saying >> >> this should be done automatically by the toolchain. That would make >> >> for an interesting side-project... >> > >> > True. It's probably not feasible though. >> > >> > Tracking string deduplication/reuse would be pretty difficult. >> >> [...] Therefore I'm still not convinced that solving the >> problem in the toolchain is the right thing to do. It's *way* more >> complicated and probably gets it wrong more often than not. Therefore >> the straight simple approach of manually marking the strings is IMHO >> the best solution. Unfortunately, not everyone shares this opinion :/ > > At least a few do though. > > The first 4 patches still apply and are useful in my opinion. > > Maybe you could resend them as a new patch set and cc Andrew Morton. > (cc'd here too)
Andrew briefly commented on v2 of the patch set so I added him to the Cc list when sending v3, linked above. But he did say nothing so I guess Ingo's dislike of the approach is still valid? Andrew, what's your opinion on such a patch set? Do you too think it's useful? Or do you share Ingo's fear about the additional maintenance burden? Thanks, Mathias -- 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/
