linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] nitpick: make simple functions inline

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]

Date:	Mon, 12 Dec 2011 09:27:25 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jbottomley@...allels.com,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, bsingharora@...il.com, devel@...nvz.org,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] nitpick: make simple functions inline

Hello,

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 09:44:54PM +0100, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On 12/11/2011 07:55 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > Can you please tell us which compiler failed automatic inlining?
> > I suspect gcc is enough sane and we don't need this patch.
> 
> Of course we don't need, that's the very definition of a "nitpick".
> This patch is directed towards the reader, not the compiler. Maintainers
> are free to take it or not, although I believe being explicit is better.

These days, I don't think adding inline buys us much (other than
explicit cases where always_inline or noinline is necessary).  gcc
already does good enough job for inlining and 'inline' hint seems more
to hinder rather than help and I don't really see what it buys for
code readers either, so I won't be taking this one.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/