linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Generic rb tree code

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: <20120528232246.GC20954@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:	Tue, 29 May 2012 08:22:46 +0900
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
	axboe@...nel.dk, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Generic rb tree code

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:57:38PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> Right now, users of the rb tree code have to open code their own search and
> insert functions. This provides generic versions that you pass a comparison
> function to.
> 
> I highly doubt the extra function calls are going to have a measurable
> performance impact in practice - the pointer chasing is going to dominate. I
> did provide inline versions just in case, though - it's modelled after the
> spinlock code.

Modeled after spinlock code how?  AFAICS, spinlock code doesn't
present inline and !inline versions to users.  All the current users
are inline anyway, why not just provide inlined versions and worry
about whether inlining is beneifical in a separate patch?

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/