[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] Generic rb tree code
    Hello, Kent.

    On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:30:32PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
    > > Modeled after spinlock code how? AFAICS, spinlock code doesn't
    > > present inline and !inline versions to users.
    > That probably wasn't intended, but it's how it works out.
    > __raw_spin_lock() and all the variants are defined as inline functions,
    > and then depending on whether CONFIG_INLINE_BLAH is enabled
    > _raw_spin_lock_blah() is defined to __raw_spin_lock_blah(), otherwise
    > _raw_spin_lock_blah() is a wrapper in a .c file.
    > But the end result is that the inline versions are also available.

    Doesn't matter. Nobody outside spinlock implementation proper should
    be using them.

    > > All the current users
    > > are inline anyway, why not just provide inlined versions and worry
    > > about whether inlining is beneifical in a separate patch?
    > Yeah, possible. I think it's only going to be an issue for rb_search()
    > in practice (since rb_search needs the stack allocated search argument),
    > should probably just drop the inline version of rb_insert().

    As long as there's single version of the thing....



     \ /
      Last update: 2012-05-29 08:21    [W:0.029 / U:119.336 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site