[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:0.125 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site