Re: [PATCH] Generic dead function optimisation

From: Andrew Morton (andrewm@uow.edu.au)
Date: Wed Apr 19 2000 - 07:46:56 EST

Next message: Andrew Morton: "[patch] drivers/char/n_tty.c"
Previous message: Jesse Pollard: "Re: Proposal "LUID""
In reply to: Graham Stoney: "[PATCH] Generic dead function optimisation"
Next in thread: Graham Stoney: "Re: [PATCH] Generic dead function optimisation"
Reply: Graham Stoney: "Re: [PATCH] Generic dead function optimisation"
Reply: Pavel Machek: "Re: [PATCH] Generic dead function optimisation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Graham Stoney wrote:
>
> Yo kernel hackers,
>
> This is a followup to an article about dead function optimisation, which I
> posted a couple of weeks ago.

Hi, Graham.

x86/SMP: Patch applies cleanly against 2.2.14-pre9. vmlinux ends
up with ~300 bytes less text, from one meg.

oops at startup because include/asm-i386/uaccess.h:__put_user_asm()
had two .previous's where one was needed. Kernel works fine when
this is fixed.

As far as your 'bad write' program goes, it tickles what appears to be
a long-standing kernel bug. Subject of my next email...

I did verify that the extable[] stuff is working fine.

With the above change, your patch works on x86.

-- -akpm-

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Andrew Morton: "[patch] drivers/char/n_tty.c"
Previous message: Jesse Pollard: "Re: Proposal "LUID""
In reply to: Graham Stoney: "[PATCH] Generic dead function optimisation"
Next in thread: Graham Stoney: "Re: [PATCH] Generic dead function optimisation"
Reply: Graham Stoney: "Re: [PATCH] Generic dead function optimisation"
Reply: Pavel Machek: "Re: [PATCH] Generic dead function optimisation"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 23 2000 - 21:00:15 EST