From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269171AbTGJKOf (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:14:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269174AbTGJKOf (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:14:35 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.224.33.161]:62896 "EHLO holomorphy") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269171AbTGJKOd (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:14:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 03:30:22 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Thomas Schlichter Cc: Piet Delaney , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: 2.5.74-mm3 - apm_save_cpus() Macro still bombs out Message-ID: <20030710103022.GV15452@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , Thomas Schlichter , Piet Delaney , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org References: <20030708223548.791247f5.akpm@osdl.org> <200307101142.37137.schlicht@uni-mannheim.de> <20030710094841.GU15452@holomorphy.com> <200307101159.51175.schlicht@uni-mannheim.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200307101159.51175.schlicht@uni-mannheim.de> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 10 July 2003 11:48, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > It's not the 64B... > I care about the unneeded but executed code! > But I'm a hopeless perfectionist caring about such nits... On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 11:59:49AM +0200, Thomas Schlichter wrote: > And I don't know why everybody hates my patches... ;-( It's not that anyone hates them, it's that pass 1: the semantics (0 == empty cpu set) needed preserving pass 2: remove code instead of changing redundant stuff NFI YTF gcc doesn't optimize out the whole shebang. At any rate, if we're pounding APM BIOS calls or apm_power_off() like wild monkeys there's something far more disturbing going wrong than 64B of code gcc couldn't optimize (it's probably due to some jump target being aligned to death or some such nonsense). -- wli From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 03:30:22 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: 2.5.74-mm3 - apm_save_cpus() Macro still bombs out Message-ID: <20030710103022.GV15452@holomorphy.com> References: <20030708223548.791247f5.akpm@osdl.org> <200307101142.37137.schlicht@uni-mannheim.de> <20030710094841.GU15452@holomorphy.com> <200307101159.51175.schlicht@uni-mannheim.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200307101159.51175.schlicht@uni-mannheim.de> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Thomas Schlichter Cc: Piet Delaney , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Thursday 10 July 2003 11:48, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > It's not the 64B... > I care about the unneeded but executed code! > But I'm a hopeless perfectionist caring about such nits... On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 11:59:49AM +0200, Thomas Schlichter wrote: > And I don't know why everybody hates my patches... ;-( It's not that anyone hates them, it's that pass 1: the semantics (0 == empty cpu set) needed preserving pass 2: remove code instead of changing redundant stuff NFI YTF gcc doesn't optimize out the whole shebang. At any rate, if we're pounding APM BIOS calls or apm_power_off() like wild monkeys there's something far more disturbing going wrong than 64B of code gcc couldn't optimize (it's probably due to some jump target being aligned to death or some such nonsense). -- wli -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org