On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 19:57 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:42:39AM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> > + * The _raw_mcs_spin_lock() function should not be called directly. Instead,
> > + * users should call mcs_spin_lock().
> > */
> > -static noinline
> > -void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
> > +static inline
> > +void _raw_mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
> > {
> > struct mcs_spinlock *prev;
> >
>
> So why keep it in the header at all?
I also made the suggestion originally of keeping both lock and unlock in
mcs_spinlock.c. Wonder if Waiman decides to keep them in header
because in-lining the unlock function makes execution a bit faster?
Tim
--
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>