linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] mtd: nand: raw: brcmnand: Refactored code and introduced inline functions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:39:22 -0400
From:   Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@...il.com>
To:     Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
Cc:     MTD Maling List <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mtd: nand: raw: brcmnand: Refactored code and
 introduced inline functions

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:18 AM Boris Brezillon
<boris.brezillon@...labora.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 10:11:20 -0400
> Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > Boris,
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 3:57 AM Boris Brezillon
> > <boris.brezillon@...labora.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 30 May 2019 17:20:35 -0400
> > > Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Refactored NAND ECC and CMD address configuration code to use inline
> > > > functions.
> > >
> > > I'd expect the compiler to be smart enough to decide when inlining is
> > > appropriate. Did you check that adding the inline specifier actually
> > > makes a difference?
> >
> > This was done to make the code more readable. It does not make any
> > difference to performance.
>
> I meant dropping the inline specifier, not going back to manual
> inlining. As a general rule, you don't need to add the 'inline'
> specifier unless your function is defined in a header. In all other
> cases the compiler is able to inline things on its own when it sees the
> number of instructions is small enough or when the function is only
> called once.

Oh ok got it, will get rid if the inline specifier  and send a v2
version of the change.

Thanks
Kamal