On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 03:30:25PM +0200, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 02:10:38PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 12:54:55PM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 14:20 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
I would also like to see bloat-o-meter statistics before and after your patch. My guts tell me that the result will be not in the favour of yours solution.
Can you please tell me what type of stats you hope to see? I can try generating what you are after. The cover letter contained typical +/- change stats from git and summary:
62 files changed, 228 insertions(+), 104 deletions(-)
I guess he wants to see
scripts/bloat-o-meter vmlinuz.old vmlinuz
Yes, but be sure you have compiled them all and build them all in. Otherwise you might get wrong result.
. I would expect a 0 there. I didn't look in detail, but in general I like the idea to give 0 and 1 a symbolic name.
I'll will be fine with that if and only if maintainers are okay. For now, I don't like the idea to trade bad for worse.
I don't see you concern.
int somefunction(...) { return 1; }
is definitively worse than
int somefunction(...) { return GPIO_LINE_DIRECTION_IN; }
and after cpp had its go on the source the compiler sees the exact same thing, so I don't expect any size changes. The only change is that to write (or understand) the above code, you have to know that 1 corresponds to GPIO input (or was it output?) while in the later function it is obvious that we're talking about an input.
Best regards Uwe