On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 02:55:38PM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: > On 10/23/2017 2:38 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c > b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c > > > index 07b80fa..dfe6224 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c > > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/hw/hfi1/mad.c > > > @@ -98,6 +98,16 @@ static inline void clear_opa_smp_data(struct opa_smp *smp) > > > memset(data, 0, size); > > > } > > > > > > +static inline u16 hfi1_lookup_pkey_value(struct hfi1_ibport *ibp, int pkey_idx) > > > > Please, no "inline-function" in *.c files as it is written in CodingStyle. > > Sure about that? I'm not style-nazi, so won't insist, but this is in CodingStyle. Documentation/process/coding-style.rst 841 15) The inline disease 842 ---------------------- 843 844 There appears to be a common misperception that gcc has a magic "make me 845 faster" speedup option called ``inline``. While the use of inlines can be 846 appropriate (for example as a means of replacing macros, see Chapter 12), it 847 very often is not. Abundant use of the inline keyword leads to a much bigger 848 kernel, which in turn slows the system as a whole down, due to a bigger 849 icache footprint for the CPU and simply because there is less memory 850 available for the pagecache. Just think about it; a pagecache miss causes a 851 disk seek, which easily takes 5 milliseconds. There are a LOT of cpu cycles 852 that can go into these 5 milliseconds. > > As a rule of thumb I agree we should not put inlines in C files though. > However as you can see from the context, this file already has static > inlines so I wasn't too bothered by it. > > -Denny >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
