[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130814095014.GA10849@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:50:14 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] mm: Unify pte_to_pgoff and pgoff_to_pte helpers
* Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 01:08:56AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can it be written in C with types and proper variable names and such
> > > > radical stuff?
> > >
> > > Could you elaborate? You mean inline helper or macro with type checks?
> >
> > /*
> > * description goes here
> > */
> > static inline pteval_t pte_bfop(pteval_t val, int rightshift, ...)
> > {
> > ...
> > }
> >
> > So much better! We really should only implement code in a macro if it
> > *has* to be done as a macro and I don't think that's the case here?
>
> Well, I'll have to check if it really doesn't generate additional
> instructions in generated code, since it's hotpath. I'll ping back once
> things are done.
An __always_inline should never do that.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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