linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vfs: avoid taking locks if inode not in lists

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20110727205957.GC8006@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jul 2011 22:59:57 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, npiggin@...nel.dk,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: avoid taking locks if inode not in lists

> Btw, I wonder if you should micro-optimize things a bit further by
> moving the unhashed checks from the deletion functions into the callers
> and thus save a function call for each of them.

If the caller is in the same file modern gcc is able to do that automatically
if you're lucky enough ("partial inlining")

I would not uglify the code for it.

-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/