linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/7] fat: cleanup fs/fat/dir.c

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87bq1hvges.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp>
Date:	Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:16:11 +0900
From:	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] fat: cleanup fs/fat/dir.c

Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> writes:

> On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 11:57:03AM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
>> 
>> This is no logic changes, just cleans fs/fat/dir.c up.
>
> I don't think it makes sense to mark the new functions inline, they are
> quite big, and if it really makes sense to inline them the compiler will
> do it for us.

I know people hate inline, me too recently. But, I also know old gcc is
not smart. Actually the optimize by hand was much faster (although it's
not kernel).

I've tested this without inline. gcc-3.4.6 doesn't inlined
fat_name_match(), but gcc-4.3.1 inlined it.

What do you think? If you still think it shouldn't, I'll remove it.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
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/