Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <1521131394.22221.25.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm: Reduce object size of DRM_ERROR and DRM_DEBUG uses
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Ville =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
        Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Date:   Thu, 15 Mar 2018 09:29:54 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20180315161434.GV5453@intel.com>
References: <016b5cb84cede20fd0f91ed6965421d99fd5f2ce.1520978414.git.joe@perches.com>
         <20180315133026.GR5453@intel.com>
         <1b50f5d8-97a6-2442-34bb-2782c35505fd@linux.intel.com>
         <20180315150524.GS5453@intel.com> <1521127073.22221.13.camel@perches.com>
         <20180315153734.GT5453@intel.com> <1521128645.22221.18.camel@perches.com>
         <20180315161434.GV5453@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 18:14 +0200, Ville Syrj?l? wrote:
> > There's no trade-off in this patch for faster/larger.
> > This patch is simply smaller.  Smaller is better.
> 
> This feels a bit like saying pink is better than red because it's
> more pink.

Silly.  If you can't say smaller total object code that
performs the same task identically is better, I think
we can't discuss much of anything about code together.

Any printk related mechanism is not fast-path so any
icache dilution isn't an issue.

> That said, I'm not arguing against this patch as such. Making things
> smaller "just because" usually doesn't cause problems.

It seems more like you haven't read the patch.

>  But I was
> hoping that we might be after some more tangible gains here, and
> thus pointed out that there may be a better way to achieve even
> bigger gains.

Sure, it's just any such a discussion should not affect
this patch being applied.

This patch reduces the argument count of the drm_printk
(now drm_dbg) call and so is faster to execute even if
the emit test is internal to the drm_dbg function.