[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901091701010.6528@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 17:04:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
cc: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "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 Sat, 10 Jan 2009, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>
> Does "always_inline" complain if the function isn't inlinable, while
> "inline" allows it? That would explain the alpha comment.
I suspect it dates back to gcc-3.1 days. It's from 2004. And the author of
that comment is a part-time gcc hacker who was probably offended by the
fact that we thought (correctly) that a lot of gcc inlining was totally
broken.
Since he was the main alpha maintainer, he got to do things his way
there..
Linus
--
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