From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935483AbbI2SzT (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:55:19 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:46036 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935176AbbI2SzO (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:55:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:54:03 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Davidlohr Bueso cc: Denys Vlasenko , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ingo Molnar , Andy Lutomirski , Borislav Petkov , Brian Gerst , x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/signal: Deinline get_sigframe, save 240 bytes In-Reply-To: <20150928202401.GB4035@linux-uzut.site> Message-ID: References: <1443443037-22077-1-git-send-email-dvlasenk@redhat.com> <1443443037-22077-4-git-send-email-dvlasenk@redhat.com> <099BA174-FB96-4849-BCD2-807D9A6B9580@zytor.com> <560943EF.4040407@redhat.com> <20150928202401.GB4035@linux-uzut.site> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > Nothing really against or in favor of these patches, but I don't think that > saving 240 bytes (or whatever) is worth such changes, in fact we have Josh's > tinyfication project for those systems that do in fact care. And what exactly is wrong with slimming down the mainline kernel? We have tons of inlines which are way too fat and an extra unconditional function call is not going to show up as a performance degradation by any means. Thanks, tglx