* Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 04:13:54PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > A third question would be, now that we have this flexible method > > to inline/uninline locking APIs, mind checking say a 64-bit x86 > > defconfig and see whether that generic set of inline/noinline > > decisions actually results in the smallest possible kernel image > > size? > > > > I.e. we could use this opportunity to re-tune the generic > > defaults. (and thus your patch-set would become an improvement > > as well.) > > Considering the large x86 user base I have no doubts that you will > easily find volunteers who will be happy to do this :) Hey, you are turning my own argument against me - that's not fair ;-) Anyway, your latest bits make testing of it rather straightforward for anyone interested in fine-tuning the defaults (28 kernel builds ought to settle the issue), and the current inlining rules should be rather close to the optimal solution already. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
