[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801052225.19165.paul.moore@hp.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2008 22:25:18 -0500
From: Paul Moore <paul.moore@...com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"Ilpo J??rvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, acme@...hat.com,
latten@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] [XFRM]: Kill some bloat
On Saturday 05 January 2008 7:29:35 pm Herbert Xu wrote:
> Ilpo J??rvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Ilpo J??rvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi>
>
> Acked-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
>
> > #ifdef CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL
> > -static inline void xfrm_audit_helper_sainfo(struct xfrm_state *x,
> > - struct audit_buffer
> > *audit_buf) +static void xfrm_audit_helper_sainfo(struct xfrm_state *x,
> > + struct audit_buffer *audit_buf)
>
> We should never use inline except when it's on the fast path and this
> is definitely not a fast path. If a function ends up being called
> just once the compiler will most likely inline it anyway, making the
> use of the keyword inline redundant.
For the record the inline was there before the audit patch I submitted ...
then again, I suppose I could have removed the inline while I was at it, I
just didn't notice it. Sorry about that.
Thanks for fixing this guys.
--
paul moore
linux security @ hp
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists