From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Harvey Harrison Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:08:17 -0800 Message-ID: <1231549697.5700.7.camel@brick> References: <4966AB74.2090104@zytor.com> <20090109133710.GB31845@elte.hu> <20090109204103.GA17212@elte.hu> <20090109213442.GA20051@elte.hu> <1231537320.5726.2.camel@brick> <20090109231227.GA25070@elte.hu> <20090110010125.GA31031@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Linus Torvalds , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andi Kleen , Chris Mason , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins , Matthew Wilcox , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Nick Piggin , Peter Morreale , Sven Dietrich To: Ingo Molnar Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090110010125.GA31031@elte.hu> List-ID: On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 02:01 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Linus Torvalds wrote: > - Headers could probably go back to 'extern inline' again. At not small > expense - we just finished moving to 'static inline'. We'd need to > guarantee a library instantiation for every header include file - this > is an additional mechanism with additional introduction complexities > and an ongoing maintenance cost. Puzzled? What benefit is there to going back to extern inline in headers? Harvey