[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0811101837250.9259@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:38:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@....org>, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk,
dhowells@...hat.com, mingo@...e.hu, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org, davem@...emloft.net,
mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clarify usage expectations for cnt32_to_63()
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:15:32 -0500 (EST)
> Nicolas Pitre <nico@....org> wrote:
> > >
> > > This references its second argument twice, which can cause correctness
> > > or efficiency problems.
> > >
> > > There is no reason that this had to be implemented in cpp.
> > > Implementing it in C will fix the above problem.
> >
> > No, it won't, for correctness and efficiency reasons.
> >
> > And I've explained why already.
>
> I'd be very surprised if you've really found a case where a macro is
> faster than an inlined function. I don't think that has happened
> before.
But that's the way my Grandpa did it. With macros!
-- Steve
--
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