Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Jan 2003 17:12:42 -0500 | From | Rob Wilkens <> | Subject | Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*? |
| |
On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 16:58, Emiliano Gabrielli wrote: > you do, if you inline the code and every drive writer use this tecnique the kernel will > be much bigger don't you think ?!?
Kernel size (footprint in memory) would grow a tad bit (not much), but it's overall speed would also go up.
> Makeing a simple function instead is quite slower I think... don't forget that goto are > used only in error recovery routines ...
That wasn't the case in Torvalds' sample code which started this thread. That was spin-locking code, I believe. Of course, in that case, there was no need for an inline function or anything, but rather restructuring of an if statement.
> You can simply build a "stack" of labels .. IMHO this is a great way to be sure of the > right order we are performing cleanup/recovery ...
If the kernel developer "knows" always that they have to follow the stack order when adding additional cases, it's fine. But it is more obvious in the patch I wrote what is going on than in the original "goto" version of the code with the fs/open.c code someone asked me to look at. This makes it harder for people unfamiliar with the complete linux kernel design in this area to get started. Of course, I'm getting a crash course it seems.
-Rob
- 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/
| |