[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <25539.1174054929@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:22:09 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, herbert.xu@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@...radead.org,
arjan@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] AF_RXRPC: Make it possible to merely try to cancel timers and delayed work [try #2]
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > +static inline int try_to_cancel_delayed_work(struct delayed_work *work)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
>
> This expands to a fair bit of code and IMHO isn't an inline candidate.
Then why is cancel_delayed_work() inline? It's very similar in terms of
expansion.
And it's not a fair bit of code. try_to_cancel_delayed_work() is out of line,
and work_release() is just clear_bit() in disguise.
David
-
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