Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH]updated ipc lock patch | Date | Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:35:25 -0700 | From | Rick Lindsley <> |
| |
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/
| |