[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080511125221.GF1645@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 15:52:21 +0300
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To: Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] kernel/sched*: optimize inlining
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 01:18:20PM +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
>
> [manual reply, no access to original content]
>
> Hi,
>
> rather NACKish here (from my minor side, that is, since there are no
> useful explanations, and in the case of a lack of explanations no
> backing numbers either which would have been helpful to resolve this ;).
>
> "x86: add optimized inlining"
> (http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/git-commits-head/2008/4/26/1612644)
> does not really say anything relevant to your patch, AFAICS.
>
> That one simply says that previously every inline was force-inlined (ugh),
> which now gcc is allowed to properly decide by itself now. This, however,
> does _NOT_ imply that it's now somehow fully sufficient for a perfect outcome
> to simply remove all open-coded "inline"s.
They both do the same - gcc is no longer forced to inline these
functions.
With either my patch or the "optimized inlining" it's 100% gcc's
choice whether or not to inline functions marked as "inline" in
kernel/sched* .
If you didn't complain when "x86: add optimized inlining" got into
Linus' tree you can't validly complain about my patch.
> Just my thoughts (keep it or burn it),
>
> Andreas Mohr
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
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