Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752109Ab3IRIfx (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Sep 2013 04:35:53 -0400 Received: from service87.mimecast.com ([91.220.42.44]:54558 "EHLO service87.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751676Ab3IRIfv convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Sep 2013 04:35:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:35:46 +0100 From: Javi Merino To: Andrew Morton Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] smp: harmonize prototypes of smp functions Message-ID: <20130918083546.GA2976@e102654-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1378132393-17089-1-git-send-email-javi.merino@arm.com> <20130917142228.0cb08371ea5259ca53055fe4@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130917142228.0cb08371ea5259ca53055fe4@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Sep 2013 08:35:47.0289 (UTC) FILETIME=[12988C90:01CEB44A] X-MC-Unique: 113091809354901501 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1410 Lines: 31 On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:22:28PM +0100, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 2 Sep 2013 15:33:13 +0100 Javi Merino wrote: > > > Avoid unnecessary casts from int to bool in smp functions. Some > > functions in kernel/smp.c have a wait parameter that can be set to one > > if you want to wait for the command to complete. It's defined as bool > > in a few of them and int in the rest. If a function with wait > > declared as int calls a function whose prototype has wait defined as > > bool, the compiler needs to test if the int is != 0 and change it to 1 > > if so. This useless check can be avoided if we are consistent and > > make all the functions use the same type for this parameter. > > Yes, that's a problem with bool. > > But the `wait' argument *is* a boolean and switching everything over to > use "bool" (instead of "int") should provide similar code-size savings. > Did you evaluate that approach? I did; you get exactly the same code-size savings. But then I read this[0] and thought that "int" was preferred. [0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/31/138 I can submit the "bool" patch instead if you prefer it. Cheers, Javi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/