From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:08:16 -0700 (PDT) > On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, Heiko Carstens wrote: >> >> However quite a few of the additional function calls in networking code >> come from uninlining: >> >> c2aa270a [NET]: uninline skb_push, de-bloats a lot >> 6be8ac2f [NET]: uninline skb_pull, de-bloats a lot >> 419ae74e [NET]: uninline skb_trim, de-bloats > > Hmm. Those functions are big only because of the stupid debugging, which > is almost certainly not worth it any more. I doubt people have seen enough > skb under/over-flows in the last years to merit the code. We have found a few bugs in the past year or two because of the check, but indeed not "a lot". > I suspect we should remove the silly skb_under/over_panic functions, and > do > > - skb_put: > - if (unlikely(skb->tail > skb->end)) > - skb_over_panic(skb, len, __builtin_return_address(0)); > + BUG_ON(skb->tail > skb->end); > > - skb_push: > - if (unlikely(skb->data<skb->head)) > - skb_under_panic(skb, len, __builtin_return_address(0)); > + BUG_ON(skb->data < skb->head); > > at which point it might be worthwhile to inline them again, because the > footprint of a BUG_ON() is really fairly small. Maybe. Although most people turn on verbose BUG's and that expands to the same if not more code than what's there now in these SKB inlines. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
