Re: [PATCH] Save some bytes in scsi_cmnd by rearranging members

2007-10-10 Thread FUJITA Tomonori
On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 12:06:01 -0600 Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 11:42:43AM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > > Please don't do this patch for now. This is because of the > > soon to come scsi_data_buffer patch that rearages most of the members above > > and puts t

Re: [PATCH] Save some bytes in scsi_cmnd by rearranging members

2007-10-09 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 11:42:43AM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > Please don't do this patch for now. This is because of the > soon to come scsi_data_buffer patch that rearages most of the members above > and puts them in a substructure. Maybe after the scsi_data_buffer patch you > can > try to do

Re: [PATCH] Save some bytes in scsi_cmnd by rearranging members

2007-10-09 Thread Matthew Wilcox
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 11:42:43AM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > Please don't do this patch for now. This is because of the > soon to come scsi_data_buffer patch that rearages most of the members above > and puts them in a substructure. Maybe after the scsi_data_buffer patch you > can > try to do

Re: [PATCH] Save some bytes in scsi_cmnd by rearranging members

2007-10-09 Thread Boaz Harrosh
On Tue, Oct 09 2007 at 1:50 +0200, Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks to acme's pahole utility, I found some places where we can save > a lot of bytes in scsi_cmnd, just by rearranging struct elements and > reducing the size of some elements. We go from 272 to 260 bytes on x86 > an

[PATCH] Save some bytes in scsi_cmnd by rearranging members

2007-10-08 Thread Matthew Wilcox
Thanks to acme's pahole utility, I found some places where we can save a lot of bytes in scsi_cmnd, just by rearranging struct elements and reducing the size of some elements. We go from 272 to 260 bytes on x86 and from 368 to 344 bytes on x86-64. - eh_eflags had a 4-byte hole after it on 64-bi