lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH]updated ipc lock patch
    Date
    From
    slightly offtopic ...

    > There is an insane amount of inlining in the ipc code. I
    > couldn't keep my paws off it.

    I agree tempting: I thought you might like that in a subsequent patch,
    yes? Mingming was splitting locks, not doing a cleanup of inlines.

    There was a time when "inline" was a very cool tool because it had been
    judged that the overhead of actually calling a function was just too
    heinous to contemplate. From comments in this and other discussions,
    is it safe to say that the pendulum has now swung the other way? I see
    a lot of people concerned about code size and apparently returning to
    the axiom of "if you use it more than once, make it a function." Are
    we as a community coming around to using inlining only on very tight,
    very critical functions?

    Rick
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:4.348 / U:0.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site