From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1KafP6-00037E-A5 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:35:20 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KafP3-00035c-7b for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:35:17 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KafP1-00034d-K2 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:35:16 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53675 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KafP1-00034V-93 for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:35:15 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.168]:17747) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KafP0-0003XS-Jc for grub-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:35:15 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m2so2376592uge.17 for ; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:35:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:to:in-reply-to :references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=EBEiTIkkeArAC6FjrcsueLI9pnEtiR4D/XpOT7CHeHk=; b=hE6l33tfZocbj5qk4nRqFq15Et3z9/ZFm2NMsuf4v7/RgVSYcIOvd+CTcQ/OVPhPJl pPIu5H/zKhjSGyHz5r7ncapcOAzJ604UfIPH/LZkJbzTtiQQUOUclbxiGKYnnOISMqnW lfStoIXerGSAL6MkxTpagb2kRHz95ERLotS00= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id :mime-version:x-mailer; b=GS34AKIbQ68azue3VRKNc6FT4vFH2FuW4Wskdgew0BZLPJwgkR4ZUNbk/J0LN5v54S CFdQjufxJtB8CkK5gQ6BTX/HpKNlVQK+P2eQO9FkNrLgF1/tNn83Ezvl7qNO+WgGNNX9 6QQCuXiLeVYIvU3srD3rF3k84zKPPIktkWFZA= Received: by 10.66.221.6 with SMTP id t6mr4498559ugg.55.1220398509904; Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:35:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.1.100? ( [213.37.137.93]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b35sm19636100ugd.53.2008.09.02.16.35.07 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:35:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Javier =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mart=EDn?= To: The development of GRUB 2 In-Reply-To: <48BDBC96.3010602@gmail.com> References: <48BD4C52.6040308@gmail.com> <1220367299.23879.15.camel@localhost> <48BD62BE.7090507@gmail.com> <1220373059.23879.25.camel@localhost> <48BD8847.9030502@gmail.com> <1220386216.23879.55.camel@localhost> <48BDBC96.3010602@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-re9gOOiCPI0AJMGvMHwA" Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:38:02 +0200 Message-Id: <1220398682.23879.70.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) Subject: Re: Sendkey patch X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:35:17 -0000 --=-re9gOOiCPI0AJMGvMHwA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El mi=C3=A9, 03-09-2008 a las 00:22 +0200, phcoder escribi=C3=B3: > > Here is my "version" of your patch, without the double indirection and > > the strange plays. The overhead is 103 bytes without the error line > > against 63 of yours, but I really think that the symmetric and > > understandable handling of previous and next is worth 40 bytes. > >=20 > Well let's summ up what we have: > -my version in 63 bytes but difficult to read (could some comments help > with it?) > -your version much easier to read but in 103 bytes > Neither of versions is right or wrong. It's a question of priorities. I > had some experiences that past some point it's difficult to decrease > size past some point. Core image has to be embed in first cylinder. > There we have 62 sectors=3D31744 bytes. We have 63 sectors =3D 32256 bytes (sectors range from 0 to 63 and the first is used by the MBR). > And now our core image (my version > with error reporting) with ata,pc and reiserfs is 29654 bytes. This > leaves us 2090 bytes. This combination is not something completely out > of the ordinary. So I suggest to give the priority to the size of the > kernel over readability (perhaps adding some comments to my version). I was wondering why my data did not match yours, and then I realized I was using my usual "extreme" combination of modules: "biosdisk pc ext2 lvm raid" yields 29298 bytes, "plenty" of space. But ata and reiserfs are quite the bloaters... The reiserfs case is particularly strange: in the linux kernel, the reiserfs module is 50% bigger than ext3.ko; while in GRUB, reiserfs.mod (without journaling) is twice the size of ext2.mod (which includes full support for ext2, partial journal support in ext3 and extents in ext4). Thus, while you are right in prioritizing kernel size; why not optimize reiserfs a bit instead of killing our (and future maintainers') eyes and brains to shave less than 40 bytes from kernel? I suppose the story would be similar with ata, because it is a new module that is yet in development. -Habbit --=-re9gOOiCPI0AJMGvMHwA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUASL3OWqSl+Fbdeo72AQK7GhAAlfLjd58QjTOcpzYECdnELOLbYwAYv5b4 xzx4j09VP30qTj9zcY1JBFJpeZgMkohaFgfEBRzJfqCYhQjGiZsReUTTCoAHA7qW jVs7nhSrxbgvu10ulEsKMnScuDzarkkV5XFJOmAvIeGXt/XZi7i7s0qtxc4qQIp8 Ukpom0qwTrYERVFOAgh2jw4z7rZs5ztWRN8bOxvoDn+GEhbFWn6co5q76O/FJuQE 11uLTvqzTTkCf9vFjTCzSUmr3QUDSanUFl8xRiMMdkh0PUvbYh4dWkCYyTelJ49A Uhbz5v4WDc+SQHqdLbmZMc30WwnreWgwCOqbiF8CVAeC/QlJD6KOdlZD5CTiZHu2 CBKi0Kxgml8dHzcC6BE97tLYaoJYA5CCl//g6cz4pBmjWzCSbJt0tB0IoOe6eVq4 CP6jY+QGxmWGDHSKTm4DAAXD3Tx3KGOnkSfet71UC0nGLQE0fWW7UXdvxKFii2Eq UkwYdVFCCQ9WsnfmFCuJMujhH+szOJwvfQo9abRHSSk+J5EifJT6vmgexNMJK5kg NT9rhSMy7d5iX0qboyasrIAMNEFb+Y56G5mlTaX/H5DfpeHz1Djl9gTV9We3WDzn mXdKq1jO5hem4HioHE2WHTSwLDyhorfj+o5XDnRn2EbnDwxcfq8TSh0gOA3n3svZ p41CmEJv8b0= =9xtp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-re9gOOiCPI0AJMGvMHwA--