On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 02:16:34PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 09:16, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > > + error = security_ops->inode_setattr(dentry, attr);
> >
> > Am I the only one who'd like to see this as an inline function?
> > 1. It can be optimized away.
> > 2. It's easier to read.
Yes, I've considered it. I might still wrap them in a inline function
if people _really_ don't like the look of them.
> You are not the only one. At the kernel summit there were discussions
> about both wrapping the few performance impacting ones in ifdefs, and/or
> using dynamic patching.
Yes, for the hooks that might affect performance (like the network ones)
they will probably be wrapped in inline functions, and controlled by a
config option.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 30 2002 - 14:00:17 EST