On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 14:34 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 15:34 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> >> +struct rb_augment_callbacks {
> >> + void (*propagate)(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_node *stop);
> >> + void (*copy)(struct rb_node *old, struct rb_node *new);
> >> + void (*rotate)(struct rb_node *old, struct rb_node *new);
> >> +};
> >
> > Should we make that const pointers? Daniel?
>
> I don't think it would hurt, but note that each function taking this
> as an argument takes it as a const struct rb_augment_callbacks *, so I
> doubt the extra consts would help either.
IIRC Daniel found it allowed some older GCC to inline more if the
function pointer itself was constant.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href