Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] build kernel/profile.o only when requested
From: Andrew Morton
Date: Tue May 20 2008 - 05:01:45 EST
On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:53:06 +0300 Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Build kernel/profile.o only if CONFIG_PROFILING is enabled.
>
> This makes CONFIG_PROFILING=n kernels smaller.
>
> As a bonus, some profile_tick() calls and one branch from schedule() are
> now eliminated with CONFIG_PROFILING=n (but I doubt these are
> measurable effects).
>
> This patch changes the effects of CONFIG_PROFILING=n, but I don't think
> having more than two choices would be the better choice.
>
> This patch also adds the name of the first parameter to the prototypes
> of profile_{hits,tick}() since I anyway had to add them for the dummy
> functions.
>
Little nits:
> index 05c1cc7..4081fa3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/profile.h
> +++ b/include/linux/profile.h
> @@ -8,8 +8,6 @@
>
> #include <asm/errno.h>
>
> -extern int prof_on __read_mostly;
> -
> #define CPU_PROFILING 1
> #define SCHED_PROFILING 2
> #define SLEEP_PROFILING 3
> @@ -19,14 +17,29 @@ struct proc_dir_entry;
> struct pt_regs;
> struct notifier_block;
>
> +#if defined(CONFIG_PROFILING) && defined(CONFIG_PROC_FS)
> +void create_prof_cpu_mask(struct proc_dir_entry *);
This omits the argument's name, whereas elsewhere you have taken care
to introduce the name where it was missing.
> +#else
> +#define create_prof_cpu_mask(x) do { (void)(x); } while (0)
I think this could be a static inline, which is neater.
I wonder why create_prof_cpu_mask() is called only by s390. I suppose
I should I should get the historical-git tree onto this machine and
find out.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/