Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:05:52 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Scott Wood <scott@timesys.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] generic-hardirqs.patch, 2.6.9-rc1-bk14
Message-ID: <20040908130552.GC20132@elte.hu>
References: <20040908120613.GA16916@elte.hu> <20040908133445.A31267@infradead.org> <20040908124547.GA19231@elte.hu> <20040908134903.A31498@infradead.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040908134903.A31498@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1026
Lines: 25


* Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:

> > wrt. unused generic functions - why dont we drop them link-time?
> 
> make explicit what you can do easily instead of relying on the
> compiler. It allows to get rid of your horrible generic_ hacks, cuts
> down compile time and makes explicit to anyone looking at the code and
> Kconfig which architectures use this.

i disagree. It's the same as the VFS model: we have generic_block_bmap()
which a filesystem might or might not make use of. It's still around
even if no filesystem makes use of it but do we care? I'd prefer fixing
our linking logic to get rid of unused functions than complicating code
and the architecture with conditionals.

is there any architecture that cannot make use of kernel/hardirq.c _at
all_?

	Ingo
-
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/