Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753386AbdF2Oq3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:46:29 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:37155 "EHLO mail-wm0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751974AbdF2OqW (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2017 10:46:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 16:46:18 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Josh Poimboeuf Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andy Lutomirski , Jiri Slaby , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] objtool: add undwarf debuginfo generation Message-ID: <20170629144618.vdzem7o6ib5nqab6@gmail.com> References: <20170629072512.pmkfnrgq4dci6od7@gmail.com> <20170629140404.qgcvxhcgm7iywrkb@treble> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170629140404.qgcvxhcgm7iywrkb@treble> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 485 Lines: 16 * Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > Plus, shouldn't we use __packed for 'struct undwarf' to minimize the > > structure's size (to 6 bytes AFAICS?) - or is optimal packing of the main > > undwarf array already guaranteed on every platform with this layout? > > Ah yes, it should definitely be packed (assuming that doesn't affect performance > negatively). So if I count that correctly that should shave another ~1MB off a typical ~4MB table size? Thanks, Ingo