Re: [RFC] Slimming down struct inode

>> > if (inode->i_ops->getblksize)
>> >     return inode->i_ops->getblksize(inode);
>> > else
>> > return inode->i_sb->s_blksize;
>> > 
>> > Trading some efficiency for space.
>> 
>> Yep, that was what I was planning on doing....
>> 
>
> Maybe
>
> if (inode->i_sb->s_blksize)
>   return inode->i_sb->s_blksize;
> else
> ...
>
> is a tiny little bit faster...
>

The compiler will anyway pick the one it thinks is better by itself.
Influence can be taken using likely/unlikely of course.


Jan Engelhardt
-- 
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [RFC] Slimming down struct inode
    • From: Avi Kivity <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [RFC] Slimming down struct inode
    • From: Theodore Tso <[email protected]>
  • Re: [RFC] Slimming down struct inode
    • From: Avi Kivity <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [Patch] Remove needless checks in fs/9p/vfs_inode.c
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH -mm] i386 syscall opcode reordering (pipelining)
• Previous by thread: Re: [RFC] Slimming down struct inode
• Next by thread: Re: [RFC] Slimming down struct inode
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]