[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180516034802.nuf7ft65nvtgc65j@treble>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 22:48:02 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, nadav.amit@...il.com,
Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] Improving compiler inlining decisions
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 07:11:07AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
> This patch-set deals with an interesting yet stupid problem: code that
> does not get inlined despite its simplicity.
I got the 0/8 patch twice, and didn't get the 1/8 patch. Was there an
issue with the sending of the patches?
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists