From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Ravnborg Subject: Re: [incremental-PATCH-for-Sam's-Review] ACPI: use ccflags-y instead of EXTRA_CFLAGS Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 23:01:05 +0100 Message-ID: <20090102220105.GB8494@uranus.ravnborg.org> References: <1230720725-9376-1-git-send-email-lenb@kernel.org> <526647e1bb69fd3248558fce365bb1fbfb226ccd.1230719795.git.len.brown@intel.com> <20081231133901.GB2388@uranus.ravnborg.org> <87bpusv31n.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20081231153441.GA3475@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20090102215208.GA8494@uranus.ravnborg.org> <87iqoxjrsw.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pfepa.post.tele.dk ([195.41.46.235]:49879 "EHLO pfepa.post.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758735AbZABV73 (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:59:29 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87iqoxjrsw.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Andi Kleen Cc: Len Brown , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 10:56:15PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > Sam Ravnborg writes: > > > > The conversion from ACPI_CFLAGS to ccflags-y is fine. > > And if acpi really require -Os then this part is also OK - > > I just did not get *why* acpi needs -Os > > None of ACPI is performance critical and it's rather large, so it was > defaulted to -Os long before the rest of the kernel. It's not > a hard requirement, but a generally good idea. Wrong wording on my part when I wrote "hard requirement". I should have said "justified requirement" which you with the above have proved it is. Thanks, Sam