Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+1\/2\]\s+Make\s+stuff\s+static\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\s+1\/2\]\s+Make\s+stuff\s+static\s*$/: 48 ]

Total 48 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:42:17 +1100; Ok, so I've had time to look at this again. Here's the definitions of STATIC and STATIC_INLINE for debug and nondebug from the patch (whitespace damaged): Index: 2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/support/debug.h; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00120.html (11,680 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static (score: 1): Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:09:43 -0600; Yup. So I know things like systemtap kgdb oprofile all work better when functions are not static, but what about variables/structures? do things really get that confused? Maybe we shouldn't worry abo; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00122.html (13,225 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static (score: 1): Author: David Chatterton <chatz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:16:17 +1100; I agree with Russell, is there a case for not defining a structure static? I can't think of one, unless it kdb/lcrash is going to work better if they are not static in a debug build. Otherwise, we sh; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00123.html (14,120 bytes)
4. Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:24:45 +1100; ..... Ok, so I'd already converted them to static where necessary. Attached is thecomplete patch. On ia64, the size of the xfs.ko and xfs_quota.ko modules decreases with this patch: Orig: -rw-rw-r--; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00124.html (45,325 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static (score: 1): Author: David Chatterton <chatz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:53:49 +1100; Just reducing xfs_bmapi by 118 bytes makes this worthwhile doesn't it? Out of interest, what estimated improvement does this have on one of Jesper's stacks? Should we be concerned that there are now; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00127.html (13,899 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:13:15 -0600; David Chatterton wrote: David Chinner wrote: Comments? Just reducing xfs_bmapi by 118 bytes makes this worthwhile doesn't it? Out of interest, what estimated improvement does this have on one of Jesp; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00132.html (10,706 bytes)
7. Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:05:52 -0600; David Chinner wrote: Performance appears to be slight faster with the noinline patch, but the variation is within the error margins of my measurements so I'd say it's neutral. Comments? with fewer in; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00152.html (9,759 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static (score: 1): Author: ); Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:31:34 +1100; .... Well, this is ia64, so stack usage really isn't the issue there. A performance degradation was really what I really care about with this change on ia64. And the increase in xfs_bmap_btalloc() of; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00172.html (11,990 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:42:17 +1100; Ok, so I've had time to look at this again. Here's the definitions of STATIC and STATIC_INLINE for debug and nondebug from the patch (whitespace damaged): Index: 2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/support/debug.h; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00328.html (11,680 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:09:43 -0600; Yup. So I know things like systemtap kgdb oprofile all work better when functions are not static, but what about variables/structures? do things really get that confused? Maybe we shouldn't worry abo; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00330.html (13,225 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:16:17 +1100; I agree with Russell, is there a case for not defining a structure static? I can't think of one, unless it kdb/lcrash is going to work better if they are not static in a debug build. Otherwise, we sh; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00331.html (14,120 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:24:45 +1100; ..... Ok, so I'd already converted them to static where necessary. Attached is thecomplete patch. On ia64, the size of the xfs.ko and xfs_quota.ko modules decreases with this patch: Orig: -rw-rw-r--; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00332.html (45,325 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:53:49 +1100; Just reducing xfs_bmapi by 118 bytes makes this worthwhile doesn't it? Out of interest, what estimated improvement does this have on one of Jesper's stacks? Should we be concerned that there are now; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00335.html (13,899 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:13:15 -0600; David Chatterton wrote: David Chinner wrote: Comments? Just reducing xfs_bmapi by 118 bytes makes this worthwhile doesn't it? Out of interest, what estimated improvement does this have on one of Jesp; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00340.html (10,706 bytes)
15. Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:05:52 -0600; David Chinner wrote: Performance appears to be slight faster with the noinline patch, but the variation is within the error margins of my measurements so I'd say it's neutral. Comments? with fewer in; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00360.html (9,759 bytes)
16. Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static (score: 1): Author: er); Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:31:34 +1100; .... Well, this is ia64, so stack usage really isn't the issue there. A performance degradation was really what I really care about with this change on ia64. And the increase in xfs_bmap_btalloc() of; /archives/xfs/2006-11/msg00380.html (11,990 bytes)
17. mount (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:31:48 -0500; I th; /archives/xfs/2006-10/msg00155.html (8,786 bytes)
18. - FC6 kernels are oopsing when lockdep & memory debugging are turned on (score: 1): Author: xxx (Tim Shimmin); Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:12:51 +1000; *nod* That was always going to happen as soon as another filesystem wanted to use it's own locking and had different create semantics... Looks like a good approach to me - it's cl; /archives/xfs/2006-10/msg00166.html (14,471 bytes)
19. (score: 1): Author: .fikar@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 08:49:18 -0500; ite <jasonjgw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2006.10.16.1025 +0200]: FYI: http://blog.madduck.net/geek/2006.08.09-through-with-xfs http://blog.madduck.net/geek/2006.08.11-xfs-zeroes http://bl; /archives/xfs/2006-10/msg00171.html (10,972 bytes)
20. FS corruption and repair problem (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:34:34 -0500; This is my desktop system, running kernel 2.6.17.11. Kernel 2.6.17 was previously installed, but I upgraded several weeks ago after I found out about the corruption bug in 2.6.17,; /archives/xfs/2006-10/msg00175.html (9,085 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3]