Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <0b4b7c5cc2f19d2d77a66c0d2ce42f63692174d9.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] bcache: use DEFINE_MUTEX() for mutex lock
From:   Muhammad Usama Anjum <musamaanjum@gmail.com>
To:     Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>, Zheng Yongjun <zhengyongjun3@huawei.com>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Cc:     musamaanjum@gmail.com, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 28 Apr 2021 21:19:26 +0500
In-Reply-To: <d7f70ce31f6f61a50c05a5d5ba03582054f144fe.camel@gmail.com>
References: <20210405101453.15096-1-zhengyongjun3@huawei.com>
         <42c3e33d-c20e-0fdd-f316-5084e33f9a3b@suse.de>
         <d7f70ce31f6f61a50c05a5d5ba03582054f144fe.camel@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.4-0ubuntu1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2021-04-06 at 02:17 +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-04-05 at 22:02 +0800, Coly Li wrote:
> > On 4/5/21 6:14 PM, Zheng Yongjun wrote:
> > > mutex lock can be initialized automatically with DEFINE_MUTEX()
> > > rather than explicitly calling mutex_init().
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Zheng Yongjun <zhengyongjun3@huawei.com>
> > 
> > NACK. This is not the first time people try to "fix" this location...
> > 
> > Using DEFINE_MUTEX() does not gain anything for us, it will generate
> > unnecessary extra size for the bcache.ko.
> > ines.
> 
> How can the final binary have larger size by just static declaration?
> By using DEFINE_MUTEX, the mutex is initialized at compile time. It'll
> save initialization at run time and one line of code will be less also
> from text section. 
> 
> #### with no change (dynamic initialization)
> size drivers/md/bcache/bcache.ko
>    text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
>  187792	  25310	    152	 213254	  34106	drivers/md/bcache/bcache.ko
> 
> #### with patch applied (static initialization)
>    text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
>  187751	  25342	    120	 213213	  340dd	drivers/md/bcache/bcache.ko
> 
> Module's binary size has decreased by 41 bytes with the path applied
> (x86_64 arch).
> 
Anybody has any thoughts on it?