[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130918083546.GA2976@e102654-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:35:46 +0100
From: Javi Merino <javi.merino@....com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] smp: harmonize prototypes of smp functions
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:22:28PM +0100, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 15:33:13 +0100 Javi Merino <javi.merino@....com> wrote:
>
> > Avoid unnecessary casts from int to bool in smp functions. Some
> > functions in kernel/smp.c have a wait parameter that can be set to one
> > if you want to wait for the command to complete. It's defined as bool
> > in a few of them and int in the rest. If a function with wait
> > declared as int calls a function whose prototype has wait defined as
> > bool, the compiler needs to test if the int is != 0 and change it to 1
> > if so. This useless check can be avoided if we are consistent and
> > make all the functions use the same type for this parameter.
>
> Yes, that's a problem with bool.
>
> But the `wait' argument *is* a boolean and switching everything over to
> use "bool" (instead of "int") should provide similar code-size savings.
> Did you evaluate that approach?
I did; you get exactly the same code-size savings. But then I read
this[0] and thought that "int" was preferred.
[0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/31/138
I can submit the "bool" patch instead if you prefer it. Cheers,
Javi
--
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