RE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: "Christoph Lameter" <clameter@xxxxxxx>, "David Mosberger-Tang" <David.Mosberger@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
- From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 16:56:25 -0800
- Cc: "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Zoltan Menyhart" <Zoltan.Menyhart@xxxxxxxx>, "Boehm, Hans" <hans.boehm@xxxxxx>, "Grundler, Grant G" <grant.grundler@xxxxxx>, "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@xxxxxxxxx>, <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Thread-index: AcZUXP2iCRCwJ58hSJSnVMMomE3boQAAIjTA
- Thread-topic: Synchronizing Bit operations V2
> Also some higher level functions may want to have the mode passed to them
> as parameters. See f.e. include/linux/buffer_head.h. Without the
> parameters you will have to maintain farms of definitions for all cases.
But if any part of the call chain from those higher level functions
down to these low level functions is not inline, then the compiler
won't be able to collapse out the "switch (mode)" ... so we'd end up
with a ton of extra object code.
-Tony
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]