This still not merged? On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 05:35:28PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > lglocks and brlocks are currently generated with some complicated macros > in lglock.h. But there's no reason to not just use common utility > functions and put all the data into a common data structure. There is a reason, which is performance. Extra function call, but also IIRC the percpu accessor was not so fast doing it this way. Maybe that's improved... So what's the performance difference? > > Since there are at least two users it makes sense to share this code in a > library. This is also easier maintainable than a macro forest. > > This will also make it later possible to dynamically allocate lglocks and > also use them in modules (this would both still need some additional, but > now straightforward, code) Yes, but let's not do either of those things :) I was slightly crazy when committing that patch to the kernel, I'll admit. So if performance isn't significantly affected, then definitely. If it is... well, it's much easier to gain 1% performance by maintaining 100 self contained lines of hilarious code like this than to actually use your brain to improve somewhere else! Thanks, Nick -- 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
