On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 09:29:49PM +0800, Cong Wang wrote: > On 03/15/2012 02:48 PM, Simon Horman wrote: > >On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:58:40AM +0800, Cong Wang wrote: > >>On 03/13/2012 08:21 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > >>>On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 02:39:38PM +0800, Cong Wang wrote: > >>>>Currently the debugging code is under #ifdef DEBUG, which > >>>>means when we want to debug, we have to re-compile the source > >>>>code with -DDEBUG. This is not convenient, we want to have > >>>>a generic --debug option so that we can enable debugging code > >>>>without re-compiling. > >>>> > >>>>This patch moves the arch-specific --debug to generic place > >>>>and moves code under #ifdef DEBUG to --debug on x86. > >>>> > >>>>BTW, the size of kexec binary increases very little after this patch. > >>> > >>>Hi Cong, > >>> > >>>In general I am happy with making kexec easier to use. However, it would > >>>be nice not to make kexec-tools even bigger than it already is. Its size > >>>already seems to be an issue for some people on ARM at least. Do you > >>>have some feeling for the change in binary size on architectures other than > >>>i386? > >>> > >> > >>Hi, > >> > >>I only tested the patches on x86 and ppc. > >> > >>Sorry I don't have a chance to test it on ARM, on ARM it just adds a > >>small function dump_memory_ranges(), if this would be a problem, > >>feel free to drop patch 3/5. :) > > > >Hi, > > > >As per my post to the ppc patch, it did not seem to compile for me. > > I did compiling and run tests on ppc64 if you mean ppc32 by "ppc". > > >I will push the remaining patches. For reference before and after > >sizes for the non-ppc architectures are as follows. > > > > Ok, I will re-send the ppc patch soon. Thank you! Sorry, I missed this. But yes, I think it was 32bit ppc where I saw the problem.
