From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753386AbdF2Oq3 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:46:29 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:37155 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751974AbdF2OqW (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:46:22 -0400
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 16:46:18 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] objtool: add undwarf debuginfo generation
Message-ID: <20170629144618.vdzem7o6ib5nqab6@gmail.com>
References: <cover.1498659915.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <e255ec17d43e4a22b58accb42380fe78250cafe8.1498659915.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <20170629072512.pmkfnrgq4dci6od7@gmail.com>
 <20170629140404.qgcvxhcgm7iywrkb@treble>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170629140404.qgcvxhcgm7iywrkb@treble>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:

> > Plus, shouldn't we use __packed for 'struct undwarf' to minimize the 
> > structure's size (to 6 bytes AFAICS?) - or is optimal packing of the main 
> > undwarf array already guaranteed on every platform with this layout?
> 
> Ah yes, it should definitely be packed (assuming that doesn't affect performance 
> negatively).

So if I count that correctly that should shave another ~1MB off a typical ~4MB 
table size?

Thanks,

	Ingo