Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 08:21:41 -0700
From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua, colpatch@us.ibm.com,
       wli@holomorphy.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch 17/23] mask v2 = [6/7] nodemask_t_ia64_changes
Message-Id: <20040407082141.1e5bd509.pj@sgi.com>
In-Reply-To: <40741819.5060001@yahoo.com.au>
References: <20040401122802.23521599.pj@sgi.com>
	<20040401131240.00f7d74d.pj@sgi.com>
	<20040406043732.6fb2df9f.pj@sgi.com>
	<200404070855.03742.vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>
	<20040406235000.6c06af9a.pj@sgi.com>
	<20040407004437.3a078f28.pj@sgi.com>
	<40740C90.3060005@yahoo.com.au>
	<20040407074441.5070b58d.pj@sgi.com>
	<40741819.5060001@yahoo.com.au>
Organization: SGI
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 838
Lines: 22

> The uninlined larger version would have to be smaller and
> faster than your small version inlined, wouldn't it?

Yes - a normal function call with 3 args will be smaller than
an inline for-loop with a test_bit().

Faster depends - small or dense would favor the inline,
large and sparse the larger version via a call.

You raise good points.  Thanks.

Looks like uninlining it is the sensible choice.

-- 
                          I won't rest till it's the best ...
                          Programmer, Linux Scalability
                          Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373
-
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/