Re: [PATCH 0/3] Generic rb tree code

[Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

Hello, Kent.

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:30:32PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > Modeled after spinlock code how?  AFAICS, spinlock code doesn't
> > present inline and !inline versions to users. 
> 
> That probably wasn't intended, but it's how it works out.
> __raw_spin_lock() and all the variants are defined as inline functions,
> and then depending on whether CONFIG_INLINE_BLAH is enabled
> _raw_spin_lock_blah() is defined to __raw_spin_lock_blah(), otherwise
> _raw_spin_lock_blah() is a wrapper in a .c file.
> 
> But the end result is that the inline versions are also available.

Doesn't matter.  Nobody outside spinlock implementation proper should
be using them.

> > All the current users
> > are inline anyway, why not just provide inlined versions and worry
> > about whether inlining is beneifical in a separate patch?
> 
> Yeah, possible. I think it's only going to be an issue for rb_search()
> in practice (since rb_search needs the stack allocated search argument),
> should probably just drop the inline version of rb_insert().

As long as there's single version of the thing....

Thanks.

-- 
tejun