On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 08:22:46AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:57:38PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > Right now, users of the rb tree code have to open code their own search and > > insert functions. This provides generic versions that you pass a comparison > > function to. > > > > I highly doubt the extra function calls are going to have a measurable > > performance impact in practice - the pointer chasing is going to dominate. I > > did provide inline versions just in case, though - it's modelled after the > > spinlock code. > > Modeled after spinlock code how? AFAICS, spinlock code doesn't > present inline and !inline versions to users. That probably wasn't intended, but it's how it works out. __raw_spin_lock() and all the variants are defined as inline functions, and then depending on whether CONFIG_INLINE_BLAH is enabled _raw_spin_lock_blah() is defined to __raw_spin_lock_blah(), otherwise _raw_spin_lock_blah() is a wrapper in a .c file. But the end result is that the inline versions are also available. > All the current users > are inline anyway, why not just provide inlined versions and worry > about whether inlining is beneifical in a separate patch? Yeah, possible. I think it's only going to be an issue for rb_search() in practice (since rb_search needs the stack allocated search argument), should probably just drop the inline version of rb_insert(). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
