Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:45:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:45:54 -0500 Received: from chaos.analogic.com ([204.178.40.224]:56732 "EHLO chaos.analogic.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:45:52 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:56:34 -0500 (EST) From: "Richard B. Johnson" Reply-To: root@chaos.analogic.com To: Robert Love cc: Alex Bennee , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Why do some net drivers require __OPTIMIZE__? In-Reply-To: <1041867947.730.8.camel@phantasy> 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: 1200 Lines: 35 On 6 Jan 2003, Robert Love wrote: > On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 10:04, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > > > You need to optimize in order enable inline code generation. It is > > essential to use in-line code in many places because, if the compiler > > actually calls these functions they would have to be protected > > from reentry. > > I do not think this is correct. > > Concurrency concerns would not change wrt calling the function vs. > inlining it. > > More likely some code, i.e. asm, just assumes inlining is taking place. > > Robert Love > When you call a function, that function gets a copy of the parameters passed to it. In-line code accesses those parameters directly. That's why the spin-lock code, for instance, won't work (with the current macros) unless they are in-lined. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.18 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips). Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it. - 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/