[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1231537320.5726.2.camel@brick>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:41:59 -0800
From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 22:34 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> The naming problem remains though:
>
> - Perhaps we could introduce a name for the first category: __must_inline?
> __should_inline? Not because it wouldnt mean 'always', but because it is
> 'always inline' for another reason than the correctless __always_inline.
>
> - Another possible approach wuld be to rename the second category to
> __force_inline. That would signal it rather forcefully that the inlining
> there is an absolute correctness issue.
__needs_inline? That would imply that it's for correctness reasons.
Then __always_inline is left to mean that it doesn't _need_ to be inline
but we _want_ it inline regardless of what gcc thinks?
$0.02
Harvey
--
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