From: Matthew Dobson Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:04:20 +0000 Subject: [KJ] Re: [PATCH 8/8] Inline 3 functions Message-Id: <43737D94.2060408@us.ibm.com> List-Id: References: <436FF51D.8080509@us.ibm.com> <436FF894.8090204@us.ibm.com> <4370F7AE.5090505@us.ibm.com> <20051110104211.GB5376@stusta.de> In-Reply-To: <20051110104211.GB5376@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Pekka J Enberg , kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:08:30AM -0800, Matthew Dobson wrote: > >>Pekka J Enberg wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Matthew Dobson wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I found three functions in slab.c that have only 1 caller (kmem_getpages, >>>>alloc_slabmgmt, and set_slab_attr), so let's inline them. >>> >>> >>>Why? They aren't on the hot path and I don't see how this is an >>>improvement... >>> >>> Pekka >> >>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? -Matt _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors