Alan Cox wrote:
> #define SIZE_HASH(small, large)CONFIG_CORE_SMALL ?
> (small):(large)
I hate to be a "ditto-head", but I like this a lot.
=
Tim Bird
Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum
Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Electronics
===
On Sul, 2005-01-23 at 17:52, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > Then you can lose all those ifdefs:
> >
> > #define MAX_PROBE_HASH (255 - CONFIG_CORE_SMALL * 254) /* dorky */
>
> Ew.
#define SIZE_HASH(small, large)CONFIG_CORE_SMALL ? (small):(large)
Perhaps ?
-
To unsubscribe from this
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 01:05:14PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I wish it didn't have "core" in the name. A little misleading.
> >
> > Well I've got another set called NET_SMALL. BASE?
>
> BASE works, I guess.
>
> > > #define PID_MAX_DEFAULT
Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I wish it didn't have "core" in the name. A little misleading.
>
> Well I've got another set called NET_SMALL. BASE?
BASE works, I guess.
> > #define PID_MAX_DEFAULT (CONFIG_CORE_SMALL ? 0x1000 : 0x8000)
> > #define UIDHASH_BITS (CONFIG_CORE_SMAL
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 12:40:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This set of patches introduces a new config option CONFIG_CORE_SMALL
> > from the -tiny tree for small systems. This series should apply
> > cleanly against 2.6.11-rc1-mm2.
> >
> > When
Matt Mackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This set of patches introduces a new config option CONFIG_CORE_SMALL
> from the -tiny tree for small systems. This series should apply
> cleanly against 2.6.11-rc1-mm2.
>
> When selected, it enables various tweaks to miscellaneous core data
> structures
This set of patches introduces a new config option CONFIG_CORE_SMALL
from the -tiny tree for small systems. This series should apply
cleanly against 2.6.11-rc1-mm2.
When selected, it enables various tweaks to miscellaneous core data
structures to shrink their size on small systems. While each twea
7 matches
Mail list logo
