From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 17:00:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 17:00:30 -0500 Received: from mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net ([167.206.5.17]:50809 "EHLO mta6.srv.hcvlny.cv.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 17:00:29 -0500 Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 17:07:19 -0500 From: Rob Wilkens Subject: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*? In-reply-to: <20030112214937.GM31238@vitelus.com> To: Aaron Lehmann Cc: Rik van Riel , Matti Aarnio , Linux Kernel Mailing List Reply-to: robw@optonline.net Message-id: <1042409239.3162.136.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> Organization: Robert Wilkens MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.1 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <1042400094.1208.26.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> <20030112211530.GP27709@mea-ext.zmailer.org> <1042406849.3162.121.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> <1042407845.3162.131.camel@RobsPC.RobertWilkens.com> <20030112214937.GM31238@vitelus.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In the case of an inline function, you're saving a jump, because the code that you would "goto" is right there in sequence with the code you are executing as far as the processor is concerned. In essence, you're duplicating code, but you're not retyping code, and your keeping code consistent accross all uses of it (keeping it modular). It's trivial, but where you're trying to cut down on the total number of instructions executed in kernel mode, you would think even where you could save one instructon (and branches are expensive, no?) you would want to. -Rob On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 16:49, Aaron Lehmann wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 04:44:05PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote: > > There's no reason, though, that the error handling/cleanup code can't be > > in an entirely separate function, and if speed is needed, there's no > > reason it can't be an "inline" function. Or am I oversimplifying things > > again? > > Remind me why this is better than a goto?