From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765278AbYBBWcl (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Feb 2008 17:32:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762658AbYBBWcc (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Feb 2008 17:32:32 -0500 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.178]:4237 "EHLO wa-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762617AbYBBWcb (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Feb 2008 17:32:31 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=O4aIqJ2UTSLCqA1B5tYCJIc+h/4VF1dFhN4rKwfWACE7y/KPTyJPXF2CVoLWdhQQ1GLDg5s0UHx1LW8Ak7KFUrde8EbDSzabTq4VpKkPvoTLkMOeqPWPOCDrLxxcqiiZ7lNKdDMeQtEcBq/n/G81IihNYYx449dpX4RTbafAIcc= Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 01:32:31 +0300 From: "Cyrill Gorcunov" To: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: setup code_bytes - use mask to restrict it's size Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , "Andi Kleen" , LKML , "Thomas Gleixner" In-Reply-To: <47A4EDC5.3050104@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080202221211.GA6749@cvg> <47A4EDC5.3050104@zytor.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Thanks for review. Agreed with you absolutely. Silly patch, sorry :( On 2/3/08, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > This patch strips off 8 bytes from text section. Not a really > > big advantage (especially for __init section). It seems 8192 > > bytes of disassembled code is rare used anyway. > > > > before: > > text data bss dec hex filename > > 9900 176 20 10096 2770 arch/x86/kernel/traps_64.o.old > > after: > > text data bss dec hex filename > > 9892 176 20 10088 2768 arch/x86/kernel/traps_64.o > > > > Signed-off-by: Cyrill Gorcunov > > --- > > > > If there is no benefit at all - just drop the patch. > > Any comments are welcome ;) > > I don't think this is the behaviour we want (wrapping around); worse, if > people enter a larger power of two they will get zero. > > So NAK on this patch, IMO. > > -hpa >