From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] Faster ext2_clear_inode() Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:31:41 -0700 Message-ID: <20070719173141.51217ba8.akpm@linux-foundation.org> 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 , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel Return-path: Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:44480 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758423AbXGTAcW convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:32:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070709200003.GA18501@lazybastard.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 22:00:03 +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. >=20 It saves a big 16 bytes of text here.