Am Freitag, den 26.10.2012, 06:36 +0800 schrieb Richard Yang: > > > >And holy cow that code is hard to read :( Why was kfifo_in() > >implemented as a macro, anyway? AFAICT all its args have a known type, > >so we could have used a proper C interface, which would have fixed all > >this nicely. > Thats simple for performance reasons, the compiler remove most of the code during the compile stage, so no runtime checks are necessary. And it is the only way since C does not provides templates like C++. > Hmm, move the definition of kfifo_in()/kfifo_out() into the kfifo.c? > Don't do it. this will result in a performance degradation. Look at the disassembled code by each change in code and compare it with the previous one. I don't believe that you can produce better code. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
