Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Message-ID: <ea10a82bfca380bf22856a99bcc695b3fae84152.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3][V2] rtlwifi: rtl8192de: make arrays static const,
 makes object smaller
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        Ping-Ke Shih <pkshih@realtek.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Tue, 03 Aug 2021 08:23:51 -0700
In-Reply-To: <4e1d8a60-0af8-97d5-b95c-7d91502825e5@canonical.com>
References: <20210803144949.79433-1-colin.king@canonical.com>
         <20210803144949.79433-2-colin.king@canonical.com>
         <e07dfde8aa6616887c74817bed1166510b5583dd.camel@perches.com>
         <4e1d8a60-0af8-97d5-b95c-7d91502825e5@canonical.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.0-1 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2021-08-03 at 16:15 +0100, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 03/08/2021 16:09, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2021-08-03 at 15:49 +0100, Colin King wrote:
> > > Don't populate arrays the stack but instead make them static const. Replace
> > > array channel_info with channel_all since it contains the same data as
> > > channel_all. Makes object code smaller by 961 bytes.
> > []
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/phy.c b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192de/phy.c
> > []
> > > @@ -160,6 +160,15 @@ static u32 targetchnl_2g[TARGET_CHNL_NUM_2G] = {
> > > ?	25711, 25658, 25606, 25554, 25502, 25451, 25328
> > > ?};
> > > 
> > > +static const u8 channel_all[59] = {
> > 
> > I don't believe there is a significant value in sizing the array
> > as 59 instead of letting the compiler count the elements.
> 
> I was reluctant to remove this as I supposed the original had it in for
> a purpose, e.g. to ensure that the array was not populated with more
> data than intended. Does it make much of a difference?
> 
> > 
> > > +	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
> > > +	36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 58,
> > > +	60, 62, 64, 100, 102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112,
> > > +	114, 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 126, 128,	130,
> > > +	132, 134, 136, 138, 140, 149, 151, 153, 155,
> > > +	157, 159, 161, 163, 165
> > > +};

Dunno.

Maybe not, but I did have to count the elements to see if
it really was 59 or the compiler was adding trailing 0's.

OK I really did a grep to count the commas and added 1...