[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160124212728.GA17997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:27:29 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Chen Gang <chengang@...ndsoft.com.cn>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
nicolas.iooss_linux@....org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: dcache: Use bool return value instead of int
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 05:19:43AM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> Hello all:
>
> Is this patch OK? shall I send the other patch based on this one? (the
> other patch is v3 trivial patch for include/linux/dcache.h).
>
> And sorry for replying late: the last week, I was not in Beijing, had to
> be busy for analyzing a Linux kernel usb related issue for my company's
> customer in Guangzhou (but at last, I guess, it is not kernel issue).
Again, do you have _any_ evidence of improved code generation with that
patch? Because if you do, I would really like to see it, so I could file
bugs against gcc optimizer.
Your impression of what _Bool is and what semantics does it have appears
to be rather different from that described in C99, but that's a secondary
issue - first and foremost, on which .config and with which gcc version
do you see improvements from that change?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists