[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1184018540.6820.5.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:02:20 -0500
From: Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, akpm@...l.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Faster ext2_clear_inode()
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 22:00 +0200, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Mon, 9 July 2007 22:01:48 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> >
> > Yes. Note that ext2_clear_inode() is referenced from ext2_sops, so even
> > empty, it leaves traces in resulting kernel.
>
> Is that your opinion or have you actually measured a difference?
> I strongly suspect that compilers are smart enough to optimize away a
> call to an empty static function.
It's not a direct call to a static function. It is called as a
super_ops method. I don't think the overhead is very significant, but
it doesn't look like it could do any harm.
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists