Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch

[Masao Uebayashi <uebayasi%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 2:20 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger
<joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 01:56:36AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 1:51 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger
>> <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 01:24:23AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger
>> >> <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 11:58:55AM +0000, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
>> >> >> Module Name:  src
>> >> >> Committed By: uebayasi
>> >> >> Date:         Sat Nov  1 11:58:55 UTC 2014
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Modified Files:
>> >> >>       src/sys/arch/amd64/conf: kern.ldscript kern.ldscript.2MB
>> >> >>           kern.ldscript.Xen
>> >> >>       src/sys/arch/i386/conf: kern.ldscript kern.ldscript.4MB
>> >> >>           kern.ldscript.Xen
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Log Message:
>> >> >> amd64, i386: Don't expose .data.{read_mostly,cacheline_aligned} sections
>> >> >
>> >> > Huh? There is no reason for such hacks. Please discuss such changes
>> >> > first.
>> >>
>> >> This is how mips ldscript does.
>> >>
>> >> Those two sections are collected and aligned by linker.  After doing
>> >> that, is there still any reason to expose the sections?  If you point
>> >> out one, I'll revert the changes and document them in the files.
>> >
>> > It makes it harder to look at the kernel image and see which variables
>> > are already optimised? Your change does not improve anything but saving a
>> > few Bytes. That's not an improvement.
>>
>> Is this the only reason you can think of?
>
> It is good enough. You haven't given a reason at all so far.

I thought it was a joke.

I made ldscript much simpler.

Although I'm not convinced at all, I can revert for you.

If you know everything about those ldscripts, I'd appreciate you
rewrite all of them.  Thanks.