From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1704492138537896499==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Andrew Morton To: kbuild-all@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [lkp] [+4218 bytes kernel size regression] [i386-tinyconfig] [865e23483f] linux-next Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 19:43:39 -0700 Message-ID: <20200722194339.a8092cdadeb60e3d0bf4202f@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20200722141129.GA292505@cmpxchg.org> List-Id: --===============1704492138537896499== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 10:11:29 -0400 Johannes Weiner w= rote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 03:48:32PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > > = > > FYI, we noticed a +4218 bytes kernel size regression due to commit: > > = > > commit: 865e23483ff94043ca26eba00422fe2b245d3dfc (linux-next) > > https://github.com/hnaz/linux-mm master > > = > > Details as below (size data is obtained by `nm --size-sort vmlinux`): > > = > > d517b0be: ipc/shm.c: Remove the superfluous break > > 865e2348: linux-next > = > This commit in this tree is a snapshot of the entire linux-next patch > stack. Bisecting and flagging that particular commit to this > particular CC list is probably not useful. > = > Andrew would know best, but to analyze/bisect the MM tree for > regressions, it'd probably be best to only do the individual commits > between the `origin' (the Linus base) and `linux-next' commits. > = The same regression should be present in Stephen's linux-next tree, so bisect that? --===============1704492138537896499==--