[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 03:04:34 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
preeti.lkml@...il.com, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/9] cpufreq: governor: Drop __gov_queue_work()
On Tuesday, September 08, 2015 07:30:44 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 08-09-15, 03:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, July 27, 2015 05:58:09 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > __gov_queue_work() isn't required anymore and can be merged with
> > > gov_queue_work(). Do it.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> >
> > Quite frankly I don't see the point.
>
> But isn't that just an unnecessary wrapper ?
It isn't a wrapper, just a separation of code executed in each step of
the loop. There's nothing wrong with having a separate function for that
in principle.
I wouldn't make a fuss about that if that was new code even, so I don't
see why we should change it.
> > I'd even remove the inline from its definition and let the compiler decide
> > what to do with it.
>
> What if the compiler decides to link it? Why add a function call for
> (almost) no use?
If the compiler does that, let it do it. :-)
If you think that you can outsmart the compiler people by doing such
optimizations at this level manually, you're likely wrong. Serious
man-hours go into making that stuff work as well as it can in compilers.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists