From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 12 12:34:45 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84169106564A; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:34:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 727ED8FC1C; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:34:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id PAA10102; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:34:42 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <4E6DFC62.9080405@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 15:34:42 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110705 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <4E6DB696.1080608@FreeBSD.org> <201109120743.02181.jhb@freebsd.org> <4E6DF4D6.8050501@FreeBSD.org> <201109120826.36804.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201109120826.36804.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org, FreeBSD-Current Subject: Re: archaic/useless CFLAGS options for x86 boot blocks X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 12:34:45 -0000 on 12/09/2011 15:26 John Baldwin said the following: > On Monday, September 12, 2011 8:02:30 am Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> I think the patch is >>> fine, and I'd even prefer to go ahead and drop the extra cruft (like removing >>> nops and aligns as well as -mrtd and -mregparm) from the UFS boot2 as well. >> >> I personally agree, thank you for this suggestion. >> My current plan is to leave boot2 alone until stable/9 is branched, but to try to >> get zfs/gpt boot changes into 9.0. What do you think? > > I think this is fine. > Another thing that was suggested to me via private communication is to change -Os to -O1 for those "non-constrained" boot blocks. I do not see anything wrong with that. -- Andriy Gapon