Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750976AbVI1Vid (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:38:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750977AbVI1Vid (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:38:33 -0400 Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.203]:3465 "EHLO zproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750974AbVI1Vic convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:38:32 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=JwT6F6UGzp3oK4lUs9UBU2Gcd1/l87PSEIqI0FzN70HyyZM07WrLBu+SFVcWCZlnbJIyqqdRWl/YBD7svdXOFzD5Fc56vlb1RmsG2tuO7kSGNwyo5wQ2BxdCJR9cZFiMW/q53VVFQ8OEgOTXEVUsehXHs8dk4hmBKmTiUND3SnA= Message-ID: <9a87484905092814384a16d167@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:38:31 +0200 From: Jesper Juhl Reply-To: Jesper Juhl To: Coywolf Qi Hunt Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] inline a few tiny functions in init/initramfs.c Cc: Nick Piggin , Con Kolivas , lkml In-Reply-To: <2cd57c90050927200118eb9ade@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <200509240126.26575.jesper.juhl@gmail.com> <200509241415.43773.kernel@kolivas.org> <4334DB96.3040904@yahoo.com.au> <9a87484905092717074e85657e@mail.gmail.com> <1127872565.5210.4.camel@npiggin-nld.site> <2cd57c90050927200118eb9ade@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1462 Lines: 36 On 9/28/05, Coywolf Qi Hunt wrote: > On 9/28/05, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 02:07 +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > > > Ok, so it seems that there's agreement that the other two inlines in > > > the patch makes sense, but the malloc() is not clear cut. > > > > > > Since this is in initramfs after all it doesn't make that big a > > > difference overall, so I'll just send in a patch that inlines the > > > other two functions but leaves malloc() alone. > > > > > > > Well, they're not particularly performance critical, and everything > > is marked init anyway so I don't know why you would bother changing > > anything ;) > > > > Don't you feel "static inline void __init " stupid? (inline + __init) > Anyway don't do things like that manually. Leave the optimization job > to gcc. Hmm, I guess you are right. They just looked like so obvious candidates for inlining, __init or no __init, but I guess it doesn't matter - I'll find better things to spend my time on. Thanks. -- Jesper Juhl Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - 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/