Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:31:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:31:00 -0400 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.132]:59589 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:30:59 -0400 Message-Id: <200210250035.g9P0ZQD11398@eng4.beaverton.ibm.com> To: Andrew Morton Cc: Hugh Dickins , cmm@us.ibm.com, manfred@colorfullife.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dipankar@in.ibm.com, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH]updated ipc lock patch In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 25 Oct 2002 00:59:03 BST." Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:35:25 -0700 From: Rick Lindsley Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1044 Lines: 23 slightly offtopic ... > There is an insane amount of inlining in the ipc code. I > couldn't keep my paws off it. I agree tempting: I thought you might like that in a subsequent patch, yes? Mingming was splitting locks, not doing a cleanup of inlines. There was a time when "inline" was a very cool tool because it had been judged that the overhead of actually calling a function was just too heinous to contemplate. From comments in this and other discussions, is it safe to say that the pendulum has now swung the other way? I see a lot of people concerned about code size and apparently returning to the axiom of "if you use it more than once, make it a function." Are we as a community coming around to using inlining only on very tight, very critical functions? Rick - 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/