Messages in this thread | | | From | Thomas Schlichter <> | Subject | Re: 2.5.74-mm3 - apm_save_cpus() Macro still bombs out | Date | Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:49:27 +0200 |
| |
On Thursday 10 July 2003 12:30, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 11:59:49AM +0200, Thomas Schlichter wrote: > > And I don't know why everybody hates my patches... ;-(
That was just fun, but OK, I forgot the 'fun' tags... ;-)
> It's not that anyone hates them, it's that > pass 1: the semantics (0 == empty cpu set) needed preserving
Well the original code already had 2 different semantics: In the MP case it returned the mask of currently allowed CPUs which should have been 1 for UP but was 0...
So as the value returned by apm_save_cpus() was only used for apm_restore_cpus () I optimized it away. Which was just an other change of the semantics...ACK
> pass 2: remove code instead of changing redundant stuff
ACK
> NFI YTF gcc doesn't optimize out the whole shebang. > > At any rate, if we're pounding APM BIOS calls or apm_power_off() > like wild monkeys there's something far more disturbing going wrong > than 64B of code gcc couldn't optimize (it's probably due to some > jump target being aligned to death or some such nonsense).
OK, I see you're right and your actual patch looks better to me because it makes the semantics consistent! So come on and let's take it into the tree...!
Thomas - 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/
| |