[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1174040043.31851.2.camel@sauron>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 12:14:03 +0200
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...radead.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, haver@...t.ibm.com,
hch@...radead.org, dwmw2@...radead.org, jwboyer@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/22 take 3] UBI: EBA unit
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 11:07 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > + spin_lock(&ubi->eba.eba_tbl_lock);
> > + ubi_assert(ubi->eba.eba_tbl[idx].recs);
> > + leb_ver = ubi->eba.eba_tbl[idx].recs[lnum].leb_ver;
> > + spin_unlock(&ubi->eba.eba_tbl_lock);
> > +
> > + return leb_ver;
> > +}
>
> I very much doubt that the locking in this function (and in the similar
> ones here) does anything useful.
Well, yes, these are integers.
> > +static inline void leb_unmap(struct ubi_info *ubi, int vol_id, int lnum)
>
> The patch is full of nutty inlining.
Yeah, this file has too much of them.
> Suggestion: just remove all of it. Then reintroduce inlining in only
> those places where a benefit is demonstrable. Reduced code size according to
> /bin/size would be a suitable metric.
OK, thanks.
> > + spin_unlock(&ubi->eba.eba_tbl_lock);
> > +
> > + return pnum;
> > +}
>
> Again, the locking seems pointless.
Thanks for comments, will be fixed.
--
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)
-
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