Hello, Kent. On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:30:32PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > 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. Doesn't matter. Nobody outside spinlock implementation proper should be using them. > > 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(). As long as there's single version of the thing.... Thanks. -- tejun -- 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
