On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:31:47AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> 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.
I don't care, what I do find odd is the existence of
_raw_mcs_spin_lock(). If you want to out-of-line it, just move the
entire thing into a .c file already.
--
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>