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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:01:04 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, npiggin@...nel.dk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: avoid taking locks if inode not in lists On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:59:57PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Btw, I wonder if you should micro-optimize things a bit further by > > moving the unhashed checks from the deletion functions into the callers > > and thus save a function call for each of them. > > If the caller is in the same file modern gcc is able to do that automatically > if you're lucky enough ("partial inlining") > > I would not uglify the code for it. Depending on how you look at it the code might actually be a tad cleaner. One of called functions is outside of inode.c. -- 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