[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <MW3PR11MB4522ADD532ACCF8C7AAF89BD8F550@MW3PR11MB4522.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:18:25 +0000
From: "Brady, Alan" <alan.brady@...el.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"Nguyen, Anthony L" <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
CC: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Michael, Alice" <alice.michael@...el.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"nhorman@...hat.com" <nhorman@...hat.com>,
"sassmann@...hat.com" <sassmann@...hat.com>,
"Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"Burra, Phani R" <phani.r.burra@...el.com>,
"Hay, Joshua A" <joshua.a.hay@...el.com>,
"Chittim, Madhu" <madhu.chittim@...el.com>,
"Linga, Pavan Kumar" <pavan.kumar.linga@...el.com>,
"Skidmore, Donald C" <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>,
"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
"Samudrala, Sridhar" <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [net-next v5 04/15] iecm: Common module introduction and function
stubs
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 1:41 PM
> To: Nguyen, Anthony L <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>
> Cc: davem@...emloft.net; Michael, Alice <alice.michael@...el.com>;
> netdev@...r.kernel.org; nhorman@...hat.com; sassmann@...hat.com;
> Kirsher, Jeffrey T <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>; Brady, Alan
> <alan.brady@...el.com>; Burra, Phani R <phani.r.burra@...el.com>; Hay,
> Joshua A <joshua.a.hay@...el.com>; Chittim, Madhu
> <madhu.chittim@...el.com>; Linga, Pavan Kumar
> <pavan.kumar.linga@...el.com>; Skidmore, Donald C
> <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>; Brandeburg, Jesse
> <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>; Samudrala, Sridhar
> <sridhar.samudrala@...el.com>
> Subject: Re: [net-next v5 04/15] iecm: Common module introduction and
> function stubs
>
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 10:32:55 -0700 Tony Nguyen wrote:
> > +static inline bool
> > +iecm_tx_singleq_clean_all(struct iecm_q_vector *q_vec, int budget) {
> > + /* stub */
> > +}
>
> Still a lot of static inlines throughout. Are they making any difference? The
> compiler will inline static functions, anyway.
We haven't profiled the inlines to verify they're doing anything, perhaps just some misguided preemptive performance attempt. We can remove them. Will fix.
-alan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists