From: Dave Kleikamp Subject: Re: [PATCH] Faster ext2_clear_inode() Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:02:20 -0500 Message-ID: <1184018540.6820.5.camel@kleikamp.austin.ibm.com> References: <20070709041122.GA5889@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru> <20070709083431.GA14761@lazybastard.org> <20070709180148.GA5747@martell.zuzino.mipt.ru> <20070709200003.GA18501@lazybastard.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Alexey Dobriyan , akpm@osdl.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070709200003.GA18501@lazybastard.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 22:00 +0200, J=F6rn Engel wrote: > On Mon, 9 July 2007 22:01:48 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > >=20 > > Yes. Note that ext2_clear_inode() is referenced from ext2_sops, so = even > > empty, it leaves traces in resulting kernel. >=20 > Is that your opinion or have you actually measured a difference? > I strongly suspect that compilers are smart enough to optimize away a > call to an empty static function. It's not a direct call to a static function. It is called as a super_ops method. I don't think the overhead is very significant, but it doesn't look like it could do any harm. --=20 David Kleikamp IBM Linux Technology Center - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel= " in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html