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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] string-choice: add yesno(), onoff(),
 enableddisabled(), plural() helpers
To:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>,
        Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
        intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
        Vishal Kulkarni <vishal@chelsio.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
References: <8e697984-03b5-44f3-304e-42d303724eaa@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
 <20191001080739.18513-1-jani.nikula@intel.com> <87eezvbgp1.fsf@intel.com>
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Message-ID: <dc08714c-c76f-10f1-a5e7-7972beeb4552@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Date:   Wed, 2 Oct 2019 13:00:30 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87eezvbgp1.fsf@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 02/10/2019 12.11, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Oct 2019, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> wrote:
>> While the main goal here is to abstract recurring patterns, and slightly
>> clean up the code base by not open coding the ternary operators, there
>> are also some space savings to be had via better string constant
>> pooling.
> 
> Make that
> 
> """
> While the main goal here is to abstract recurring patterns, and slightly
> clean up the code base by not open coding the ternary operators, using
> functions to access the strings also makes it easier to seek different
> implementation options for potential space savings on string constants
> in the future.
> """
> 
> to be more explicit that this change does not directly translate to any
> space savings.
> 
> Rasmus, okay with that?

It's rather fluffy, but it doesn't make unfounded claims about space
savings, so in that regard I'm fine with it.

[It's probably just my lack of imagination, but I still fail to see how
one could ever achieve better than the linker creating just 1
vmlinux-wide instance of "enabled", which I believe happens regardless
of whether one uses these helpers or not.]

Rasmus