Re: [PATCH] mthca: initialize send and receive queue locks separately

* Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Has no effect on non-lockdep kernels.
> 
> Hmm ... adding parameters to function still has text cost, I think. No?

it shouldnt - it's a static function and the parameter is unused _and_ 
is of a type that is zero-size [on non-lockdep kernels] - gcc ought to 
be able to optimize it out.

	Ingo
-
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:
  • [PATCH] lockdep: don't pull in includes when lockdep disabled
    • From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] mthca: initialize send and receive queue locks separately
    • From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH] mthca: initialize send and receive queue locks separately
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] mthca: initialize send and receive queue locks separately
    • From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] mm: moving dirty pages balancing to pdfludh entirely
• Next by Date: Re: [RFC 0/8] Reduce MAX_NR_ZONES and remove useless zones.
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] mthca: initialize send and receive queue locks separately
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] mthca: initialize send and receive queue locks separately
• 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]