Linus Torvalds wrote: > > There's none. In fact, it's wrong, unless you _also_ have an extern > definition (according to the "new" gcc rules as of back in the days). > > Of course, as long as "inline" really means _always_ inline, it won't > matter. So in that sense Ingo is right - we _could_. Which has no bearing > on whether we _should_, of course. > I was thinking about experimenting with this, to see what level of upside it might add. Ingo showed me numbers which indicate that a fairly significant fraction of the cases where removing inline helps is in .h files, which would require code movement to fix. Hence to see if it can be automated. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
