linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] slub: init_kmem_cache_cpus() and put_cpu

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Wed, 3 Oct 2012 11:21:19 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
cc:	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: init_kmem_cache_cpus() and put_cpu_partial() can
 be static

On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Christoph Lameter wrote:

> > > Acked-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> >
> > Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> >
> > I think init_kmem_cache_cpus() would also benefit from just being inlined
> > into alloc_kmem_cache_cpus().
> 
> The compiler will do that if it is advantageous.
> 

Which it obviously does with -O2, but I think it would be advantageous to 
do this at the source code level as well since we have a function with a 
single caller, which happens to be marked inline itself, but we're not 
inline.  It seems cleaner to me, but it's only a suggestion.  Thanks.
--
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/