On 9/28/05, Coywolf Qi Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/28/05, Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 02:07 +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, so it seems that there's agreement that the other two inlines in
> > > the patch makes sense, but the malloc() is not clear cut.
> > >
> > > Since this is in initramfs after all it doesn't make that big a
> > > difference overall, so I'll just send in a patch that inlines the
> > > other two functions but leaves malloc() alone.
> > >
> >
> > Well, they're not particularly performance critical, and everything
> > is marked init anyway so I don't know why you would bother changing
> > anything ;)
> >
>
> Don't you feel "static inline void __init " stupid? (inline + __init)
> Anyway don't do things like that manually. Leave the optimization job
> to gcc.
Hmm, I guess you are right. They just looked like so obvious
candidates for inlining, __init or no __init, but I guess it doesn't
matter - I'll find better things to spend my time on.
Thanks.
--
Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |