lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
From
Date
commence  Rob Wilkens quotation:

> On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 17:18, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
>> These are usually error conditions. If you inline them, you will have
>> to jump *over* them as part of the normal code path. You don't save
>
> You're wrong. You wouldn't have to jump over them any more than you
> have to jump over the "goto" statement. They would be where the goto
> statement is. Instead of the goto you would have the function.

He said the *normal* path. Jumping to error code is rarely a normal
path. By replacing the gotos with inlined functions, you turn the
fast path into a bunch of jumps over duplicated error code, and the
error path into a straight line.

>> any instructions, and you end up with a kernel which has much more
>> duplicated code and thus thrashes the cache more. It also makes the
>
> If that argument was taken to it's logical conclusion (and I did, in my
> mind just now), no one should add any code the grows the kernel at all.

The interesting thing about taking arguments to their logical
conclusion is that it rarely makes any sense to do so.

--
/ |
[|] Sean Neakums | Questions are a burden to others;
[|] <sneakums@zork.net> | answers a prison for oneself.
\ |
-
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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans