Re: [PATCH] ftrace: don't increment @pos in g_start()

[Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>]

Wang Liming wrote:
> Li Zefan wrote:
>> Li Zefan wrote:
>>> Liming Wang wrote:
>>>> how about this one?
>>>>
>>> Yeah, this should work, and cleaner than my version.
>>>
>>
>> Hmmm, the patch is cleaner in diffstat but the resulted code
>> isn't..
>>
>> After yours:
>>    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>>   14879    5480    4240   24599    6017 kernel/trace/ftrace.o
>>
>> After mine:
>>    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>>   14873    5480    4240   24593    6011 kernel/trace/ftrace.o
> Hmmm, if you prefer to smaller target size, I don't care.
> But in my system, I got the same size:
> 
>   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>   14330    5019     104   19453    4bfd kernel/trace/ftrace.o
> 
> I use objdump to compute the actual size of all modified functions:
> 
> After mine:
> func    size
> g_start 0x50
> g_next  0x70
> 
> After yours:
> func     size
> __g_next 0x70
> g_next   0x20
> g_start  0x30
> 
> I used Steve git tree and commit e482f8395f215e0ad6557b2722cd9b9b308035c4.
> My gcc version is :
> gcc version 4.2.4
> 
> I don't know where the difference.
> 

Maybe because of different gcc versions:

# gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20070925 (Red Hat 4.1.2-33)

The point is, I don't see how the patch you posted is better than
mine. And it's fine for me to pick up yours if it's indeed better.