On Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:05:24 -0700
Michel Lespinasse <walken@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Add __rb_change_child() as an inline helper function to replace code that
> would otherwise be duplicated 4 times in the source.
>
> No changes to binary size or speed.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/lib/rbtree.c
> +++ b/lib/rbtree.c
> @@ -66,6 +66,19 @@ static inline struct rb_node *rb_red_parent(struct rb_node *red)
> return (struct rb_node *)red->__rb_parent_color;
> }
>
> +static inline void
> +__rb_change_child(struct rb_node *old, struct rb_node *new,
> + struct rb_node *parent, struct rb_root *root)
> +{
> + if (parent) {
> + if (parent->rb_left == old)
> + parent->rb_left = new;
> + else
> + parent->rb_right = new;
> + } else
> + root->rb_node = new;
> +}
I'm inclined to agree with Peter here - "inline" is now a vague,
pathetic and useless thing. The problem is that the reader just
doesn't *know* whether or not the writer really wanted it to be
inlined.
If we have carefully made a decision to inline a function, we should
(now) use __always_inline.
If we have carefully made a decision to not inline a function, we
should use noinline.
If we don't care, we should omit all such markings.
This leaves no place for "inline"?
Marking it noinline shrinks the text by 60-odd bytes. Given the number
of args, my gut feel is that this will be slower, despite the cache
benefit. But that might be wrong.
--
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=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>