[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200623134037.3cde6263@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:40:37 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>
Cc: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Kwapulinski, Piotr" <piotr.kwapulinski@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
"Loktionov, Aleksandr" <aleksandr.loktionov@...el.com>,
"Bowers, AndrewX" <andrewx.bowers@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next 4/9] i40e: detect and log info about pre-recovery
mode
On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 03:13:35 +0000 Kirsher, Jeffrey T wrote:
> In patch 8, the functions are not so small and simple. Are you sure
> the compiler would inline them if we did not explicitly 'inline'
> them? I want to make sure before making that change.
I'm not, but why are they supposed to be inlined - programming promisc
seems hardly to be so performance sensitive we can't take a function
call...
Also can the functions be reordered there so no forward declarations
are needed?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists