[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130605020939.GC27240@logfs.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 22:09:39 -0400
From: Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
To: Arne Jansen <sensille@....net>
Cc: Chris Mason <clmason@...ionio.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] introduce list_for_each_entry_del
On Tue, 4 June 2013 14:44:35 -0400, Jörn Engel wrote:
>
> Or while_list_drain?
Not sure if the silence is approval or lack of interest, but a new set
of patches is posted. By playing around with the implementation a
bit, I have actually found a variant that makes the object code
shrink. Not one variant gave same-size object code. There's compiler
optimization for you.
Jörn
--
Money can buy bandwidth, but latency is forever.
-- John R. Mashey
--
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