On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 3:23 PM, SF Markus Elfring
<elfring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I have applied first two,
>
> Thanks for another change acceptance.
>
>
>> the last one is subject to discuss a necessity of it.
>
> I can offer another bit of information for this software development discussion.
>
> The following build settings were active in my “Makefile” for this Linux test case.
>
> …
> HOSTCFLAGS = -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes -O0 -fomit-frame-pointer -std=gnu89
> …
>
>
> The affected source file can be compiled for the processor architecture “x86_64”
> by a tool like “GCC 6.4.1+r251631-1.3” from the software distribution
> “openSUSE Tumbleweed” with the following command example.
>
> my_cc=/usr/bin/gcc-6 \
> && my_module=drivers/platform/x86/sony-laptop.ko \
> && git checkout ':/^Sony-laptop: Delete an unnecessary variable initialisation in sony_nc_setup_rfkill' \
> && make -j4 CC="${my_cc}" HOSTCC="${my_cc}" allmodconfig "${my_module}" \
> && size "${my_module}" \
> && git checkout ':/^Sony-laptop: Use common error handling code in sony_nc_setup_rfkill' \
> && make -j4 CC="${my_cc}" HOSTCC="${my_cc}" allmodconfig "${my_module}" \
> && size "${my_module}"
>
>
> Do you find the following details useful for further clarification?
>
> text: -32
> data: 0
> bss: 0
...but kernel is compiled with -O2 which, I suppose, will eliminate
these repeats.
So, the main question is "WHY" you are doing this change.
I didn't find any convinced explanation (yet?).
As an example, I would understand it if the consequent patch will
bring locking to the function.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
