lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
In the case of an inline function, you're saving a jump, because the
code that you would "goto" is right there in sequence with the code you
are executing as far as the processor is concerned. In essence, you're
duplicating code, but you're not retyping code, and your keeping code
consistent accross all uses of it (keeping it modular).

It's trivial, but where you're trying to cut down on the total number of
instructions executed in kernel mode, you would think even where you
could save one instructon (and branches are expensive, no?) you would
want to.

-Rob

On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 16:49, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 04:44:05PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
> > There's no reason, though, that the error handling/cleanup code can't be
> > in an entirely separate function, and if speed is needed, there's no
> > reason it can't be an "inline" function. Or am I oversimplifying things
> > again?
>
> Remind me why this is better than a goto?

-
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 13:32    [W:0.193 / U:7.612 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site