On 11/05/2013 02:30 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
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
I was following the example of the spinlock code where the lock function
is not inlined, but the unlock function is. I have no objection to make
them both as non-inlined functions, if you think that is the right move.
Regards,
Longman
--
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>