On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:14:50PM -0800, josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > I would, again, argue that stuff like __splice_p() not be implemented at > > all please. It will only cause a huge proliferation of stuff like this > > that will not make any sense, and only cause a trivial, if any, amount > > of code savings. > > > > I thought you were going to not do this type of thing until you got the > > gcc optimizer working for function callbacks. > > Compared to the previous patchset, there are now only two instances of > ifdefs outside of the splice code for this, and this is one of them. In > this case, the issue is no longer about making the code for this > splice_read function disappear, but rather to eliminate a reference to a > bit of splice functionality (used *inside* the FUSE splice code) that > will not work without SPLICE_SYSCALL. > > Would you prefer to see this specific case handled via an #ifdef in > fs/fuse/dev.c rather than introducing a __splice_p that people might be > inclined to propagate? That'd be fine; the code could simply wrap > fuse_dev_splice_read in an #ifdef and have the #else define a NULL > fuse_dev_splice_read. Yes, I would prefer that, but I'm not the fuse maintainer. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
