Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269178AbTGJKfI (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:35:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269185AbTGJKfI (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:35:08 -0400 Received: from rumms.uni-mannheim.de ([134.155.50.52]:59531 "EHLO rumms.uni-mannheim.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269178AbTGJKfC (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jul 2003 06:35:02 -0400 From: Thomas Schlichter To: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: 2.5.74-mm3 - apm_save_cpus() Macro still bombs out Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:49:27 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9 Cc: Piet Delaney , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org References: <20030708223548.791247f5.akpm@osdl.org> <200307101159.51175.schlicht@uni-mannheim.de> <20030710103022.GV15452@holomorphy.com> In-Reply-To: <20030710103022.GV15452@holomorphy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200307101249.28618.schlicht@uni-mannheim.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1480 Lines: 37 On Thursday 10 July 2003 12:30, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 11:59:49AM +0200, Thomas Schlichter wrote: > > And I don't know why everybody hates my patches... ;-( That was just fun, but OK, I forgot the 'fun' tags... ;-) > It's not that anyone hates them, it's that > pass 1: the semantics (0 == empty cpu set) needed preserving Well the original code already had 2 different semantics: In the MP case it returned the mask of currently allowed CPUs which should have been 1 for UP but was 0... So as the value returned by apm_save_cpus() was only used for apm_restore_cpus () I optimized it away. Which was just an other change of the semantics...ACK > pass 2: remove code instead of changing redundant stuff ACK > NFI YTF gcc doesn't optimize out the whole shebang. > > At any rate, if we're pounding APM BIOS calls or apm_power_off() > like wild monkeys there's something far more disturbing going wrong > than 64B of code gcc couldn't optimize (it's probably due to some > jump target being aligned to death or some such nonsense). OK, I see you're right and your actual patch looks better to me because it makes the semantics consistent! So come on and let's take it into the tree...! Thomas - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/