From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] Allow inlined spinlocks again V3 Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20090814171308.GA4906@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20090814.131900.229343660.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:35670 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750962AbZHNUqK (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:46:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090814.131900.229343660.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: David Miller Cc: heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, mingo@elte.hu, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, arnd@arndb.de, horsth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, David Miller wrote: > > Maybe. Although most people turn on verbose BUG's and that > expands to the same if not more code than what's there now > in these SKB inlines. But not inline in the code, though. So yeah, it has a memory footprint, but shouldn't have a cache footprint. Linus