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]