From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] prepare kconfig inline optimization for all architectures Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:25:44 -0400 Message-ID: <20080427182544.GA23828@infradead.org> References: <20080427105100.GA14795@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20080427113158.GY2252@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080427172235.GA2252@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080427174714.GB2252@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Adrian Bunk , Sam Ravnborg , linux arch , LKML , Ingo Molnar , David Miller On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:11:27AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > For example, what's wrong with having "inline" on functions in .c files if > the author thinks they are small enough? He's likely right. Considering > past behaviour, he's quite often more right than the compiler. Actually looking at older code in the tree he's most likely wrong :) Probably as bad as the compiler. But the nice part about the code is that we can fix it easily. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:57272 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757767AbYD0SZs (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:25:48 -0400 Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:25:44 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] prepare kconfig inline optimization for all architectures Message-ID: <20080427182544.GA23828@infradead.org> References: <20080427105100.GA14795@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20080427113158.GY2252@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080427172235.GA2252@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080427174714.GB2252@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Adrian Bunk , Sam Ravnborg , linux arch , LKML , Ingo Molnar , David Miller Message-ID: <20080427182544.gdOYPu3k7_Dw5xsf2dE5t5W5IUlcDu9fDW6Aou8AxA8@z> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 11:11:27AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > For example, what's wrong with having "inline" on functions in .c files if > the author thinks they are small enough? He's likely right. Considering > past behaviour, he's quite often more right than the compiler. Actually looking at older code in the tree he's most likely wrong :) Probably as bad as the compiler. But the nice part about the code is that we can fix it easily.