Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning

[Harvey Harrison]

On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 13:50 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > 
> > __needs_inline?  That would imply that it's for correctness reasons.
> 
> .. but the point is, we have _thousands_ of inlines, and do you know which 
> is which? We've historically forced them to be inlined, and every time 
> somebody does that "OPTIMIZE_INLINE=y", something simply _breaks_.
> 

My suggestion was just an alternative to __force_inline as a naming...I agree that
inline should mean __always_inline.....always.

> So instead of just continually hitting our head against this wall because 
> some people seem to be convinced that gcc can do a good job, just do it 
> the other way around. Make the new one be "inline_hint" (no underscores 
> needed, btw), and there is ansolutely ZERO confusion about what it means. 

agreed.

> At that point, everybody knows why it's there, and it's clearly not a 
> correctness issue or anything else.
> 
> Of course, at that point you might as well argue that the thing should not 
> exist at all, and that such a flag should just be removed entirely. Which 
> I certainly agree with - I think the only flag we need is "inline", and I 
> think it should mean what it damn well says.

Also agreed, but there needs to start being some education about _not_ using
inline so much in the kernel.

Harvey

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/