On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 01:13:11 +0200 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Really the function shouldn't exist in this case. It is __init so the > > sin is not terrible, but can this be arranged? > > I would like to get rid of __ptlock_alloc()/__ptlock_free() too, but I > don't see a way within C: we need to know sizeof(spinlock_t) on > preprocessor stage. > > We can have a hack on kbuild level: write small helper program to find out > sizeof(spinlock_t) before start building and turn it into define. > But it's overkill from my POV. And cross-compilation will be a fun. Yes, it doesn't seem worth the fuss. The compiler will remove all this code anyway, so for example ptlock_cache_init() becomes an empty function. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>