status information

[Eric W. Biederman]

"Ronald G. Minnich" <rminnich at lanl.gov> writes:

> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> > I will (hopefully) commit later today, but I have found one general
> > technique that will cut down the code size but a small amount.
> > In the chip_operations struct we have a name for debugging.
> > Since we are no longer printing that name there is no point in
> > keeping it.
> 
> hmm, this sounds like a lot of potential pain for a small gain. Can we 
> talk about this a bit first. 

Sure.    First here are two examples.
struct chip_opertations cpu_intel_socket_mPGA479M_control = {
	.name = "socket mPGA479M",
};

Killing the name for cpu sockets allows us to kill the whole
structure.

struct chip_operations northbridge_intel_e7501_ops = {
        .name      = "intel E7501 Northbridge",
	.enable_dev = enable_dev,
};


First note that all we did with the names was to print them when
we converted from the static to the dynamic tree.  Nothing
uses them anymore.  

Killing them is as simple as removing a structure member.  And
deleting a few lines of code.  Bloatwise strings appear to
be up towards the top of the list.

This is really a continuation of killing the static device tree.

If you like I will trade you gdb stubs for the currently useless
debugging string names. ;)  I just finished the code for that.
The conversations of the last couple of days inspired me. :)

Eric