On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 09:51:48PM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Hi Zhiyong, >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:08:55PM +0800, zwu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> > [snip] >> >> @@ -199,6 +342,54 @@ err: >> >> } >> >> >> >> /* >> >> + * Main function to update access frequency from read/writepage(s) hooks >> >> + */ >> >> +inline void hot_update_freqs(struct inode *inode, u64 start, >> >> + u64 len, int rw) >> > >> > This function seems too big. So we really need to inline this function? >> As Dave said in his comments, it will add a function call >> overhead even when tracking is not enabled. a static inline function >> will just result in no extra overhead other than the if >> statement.... > > I don't think I said that with respect to this code. I think I said > it w.r.t. a define or a small wrapper that decides to call > hot_update_freqs(). A static inline fucntion should only be a > couple of lines of code at most. > > A static function, OTOH, can be inlined by the compiler if the > compiler thinks that is a win. But.... thanks for your explaination at first. > > ..... > >> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hot_update_freqs); > > ... it's an exported function, so it can't be inline or static, so > using "inline" is wrong whatever way you look at it. ;) ah, but i' m surprised by why the compiler find this error. > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Regards, Zhi Yong Wu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
