Re: [PATCH -mm] mm: Unify pte_to_pgoff and pgoff_to_pte helpers

[Ingo Molnar]

* Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 01:08:56AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Can it be written in C with types and proper variable names and such
> > > > radical stuff?
> > > 
> > > Could you elaborate? You mean inline helper or macro with type checks?
> > 
> > /*
> >  * description goes here
> >  */
> > static inline pteval_t pte_bfop(pteval_t val, int rightshift, ...)
> > {
> > 	...
> > }
> > 
> > So much better!  We really should only implement code in a macro if it
> > *has* to be done as a macro and I don't think that's the case here?
> 
> Well, I'll have to check if it really doesn't generate additional 
> instructions in generated code, since it's hotpath. I'll ping back once 
> things are done.

An __always_inline should never do that.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/