On Fri, 2006-04-21 at 13:30 -0700, Vernon Mauery wrote:
> On Friday 21 April 2006 12:22, you wrote:
> > What makes you confident that the static inline version gives a time
> > saving?
>
> A static inline wrapper would mean that it wouldn't have to make a function
> call just to check if the pointer is NULL. A simple NULL check is faster
> than a function call and then a simple NULL check. In other words, there
> would be no pushing and popping the stack. In almost all cases, replacing an
> inline function with a non-inline function means a trade-off between speed
> and size.
Andrew Morton just submitted a patch to -mm that fixes the two problem
places that called kfree(NULL) more than it calls kfree(non-NULL).
Besides the places that are now fixed, the inline doesn't save much.
Since most cases kfree(non-NULL) is called, so the NULL is really an
unlikely case. Thus you just increased the size of the kernel, for
virtually no speed savings.
-- Steve
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
