From: Adrian Bunk Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:38:22 +0000 Subject: [KJ] Re: [PATCH 8/8] Inline 3 functions Message-Id: <20051110173822.GD5376@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============39867629414663375==" List-Id: References: <436FF51D.8080509@us.ibm.com> <436FF894.8090204@us.ibm.com> <4370F7AE.5090505@us.ibm.com> <20051110104211.GB5376@stusta.de> <43737D94.2060408@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <43737D94.2060408@us.ibm.com> To: Matthew Dobson Cc: Pekka J Enberg , kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --===============39867629414663375== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 09:04:20AM -0800, Matthew Dobson wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > >>Well, no, they aren't on the hot path. I just figured since they are only > >>ever called from one other function, why not inline them? If the sentiment > >>is that it's a BAD idea, I'll drop it. > > > > > > And if there will one day be a second caller, noone will remember to > > remove the inline... > > So are you suggesting that we don't mark these functions 'inline', or are > you just pointing out that we'll need to drop the 'inline' if there is ever > another caller? I'd suggest to not mark them 'inline'. > -Matt cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed --===============39867629414663375== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors --===============39867629414663375==--