Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 18:55:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 18:55:55 -0500 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:27655 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 18:54:44 -0500 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:00:34 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Hedrick To: Mark Mielke cc: Arjan van de Ven , David McIlwraith , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: spinlocks, the GPL, and binary-only modules In-Reply-To: <20021121170224.GB5315@mark.mielke.cc> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1045 Lines: 31 On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Mark Mielke wrote: > Some (not all) of the inlined functions are 'inline' to accelerate the > kernel. Point is noted and the performance issue stands on its own as a strike against removing the inline, this is a given. Now what is the performance difference if the inline is moved to a .c and makd and extern inline in the .h ? The object of the question is determine if there is a peformance break point to consider the moving of a inlined C code to a proper .c file. Obviously adding a new kernel fork to move around the inline game will be painful but if it narrows the gap between black and white to remove the chance of accidentail GPL code inclusion. It may be worth it to consider. Comments and Flames welcome. Cheers, Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group - 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/