Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:38:31 +0200 | From | Jesper Juhl <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] inline a few tiny functions in init/initramfs.c |
| |
On 9/28/05, Coywolf Qi Hunt <coywolf@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/28/05, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 02:07 +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > > > Ok, so it seems that there's agreement that the other two inlines in > > > the patch makes sense, but the malloc() is not clear cut. > > > > > > Since this is in initramfs after all it doesn't make that big a > > > difference overall, so I'll just send in a patch that inlines the > > > other two functions but leaves malloc() alone. > > > > > > > Well, they're not particularly performance critical, and everything > > is marked init anyway so I don't know why you would bother changing > > anything ;) > > > > Don't you feel "static inline void __init " stupid? (inline + __init) > Anyway don't do things like that manually. Leave the optimization job > to gcc.
Hmm, I guess you are right. They just looked like so obvious candidates for inlining, __init or no __init, but I guess it doesn't matter - I'll find better things to spend my time on. Thanks.
-- Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |