On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 09:19:26PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > On Tue, 2021-04-06 at 02:17 +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote: > > On Mon, 2021-04-05 at 22:02 +0800, Coly Li wrote: > > > On 4/5/21 6:14 PM, Zheng Yongjun wrote: > > > > mutex lock can be initialized automatically with DEFINE_MUTEX() > > > > rather than explicitly calling mutex_init(). > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Zheng Yongjun <zhengyongjun3@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > NACK. This is not the first time people try to "fix" this location... > > > > > > Using DEFINE_MUTEX() does not gain anything for us, it will generate > > > unnecessary extra size for the bcache.ko. > > > ines. > > > > How can the final binary have larger size by just static declaration? > > By using DEFINE_MUTEX, the mutex is initialized at compile time. It'll > > save initialization at run time and one line of code will be less also > > from text section. > > > > #### with no change (dynamic initialization) > > size drivers/md/bcache/bcache.ko > > text data bss dec hex filename > > 187792 25310 152 213254 34106 drivers/md/bcache/bcache.ko > > > > #### with patch applied (static initialization) > > text data bss dec hex filename > > 187751 25342 120 213213 340dd drivers/md/bcache/bcache.ko > > > > Module's binary size has decreased by 41 bytes with the path applied > > (x86_64 arch). > > > Anybody has any thoughts on it? > I think you're right and the response is puzzling. But who cares? It's a small thing. Leave it and move on. regards, dan carpenter
