Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757059AbZCFTik (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:38:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753082AbZCFTib (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:38:31 -0500 Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.142.184]:7626 "EHLO ti-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753115AbZCFTib (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:38:31 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=nsMR4yuG7/da8muTMTmEHn/mvh4O2yYBCEgsgmp+R0Z75OJi0VhHNp5+ytjpHO7DMu RAZAU4UzLFnERRiIwCAhnwlLh1jnZZGB8ukiXqTRmSKKwG350S6tMHIJZThDnSOjw+CE OmDHfr5r/cnqKSwyw8PFN/NefFTKH0Vpjhtk4= Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 22:38:23 +0300 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Joerg Roedel Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/18] dma-debug: add hash functions for dma_debug_entries Message-ID: <20090306193823.GG7420@localhost> References: <1236346229-6618-1-git-send-email-joerg.roedel@amd.com> <1236346229-6618-4-git-send-email-joerg.roedel@amd.com> <20090306135052.GE5988@nowhere> <20090306184514.GE7420@localhost> <20090306191059.GE7329@nowhere> <20090306191641.GF7420@localhost> <20090306192535.GD6966@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090306192535.GD6966@amd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1075 Lines: 25 [Joerg Roedel - Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 08:25:35PM +0100] ... | > Nod :) The only problem could be (it depends) -- is that | > if one day some locking would be needed instead of fixing | > one function you would need to grep all list_add/del entries :) | | The access is already locked. And as the functions are only called | once each gcc should inline them automatically. At least gcc inlined | them in my kernels :) | | Joerg I didn't checked the precise code logic neither details, just wanted to point out that 'wrapping' functions are beneficial sometimes (especially when they hide details of internal data and provide some kind of interface to play with). Dunno Joerg, I think it would be better to point out that we want those functions being inlined by gcc 'inline' attribute explicitly. But you choose :) - Cyrill - -- 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/