Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] MCS Lock: Make mcs_spinlock.h includable in otherfiles

[Waiman Long]

On 11/05/2013 02:30 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 19:57 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:42:39AM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> > > + * The _raw_mcs_spin_lock() function should not be called directly. Instead,
> > > + * users should call mcs_spin_lock().
> > >    */
> > > -static noinline
> > > -void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
> > > +static inline
> > > +void _raw_mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
> > >   {
> > >   	struct mcs_spinlock *prev;
> > So why keep it in the header at all?
> I also made the suggestion originally of keeping both lock and unlock in
> mcs_spinlock.c.  Wonder if Waiman decides to keep them in header
> because in-lining the unlock function makes execution a bit faster?
>
> Tim

I was following the example of the spinlock code where the lock function 
is not inlined, but the unlock function is. I have no objection to make 
them both as non-inlined functions, if you think that is the right move.

Regards,
Longman
--
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/