From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx164.postini.com [74.125.245.164]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 91CA16B0069 for ; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 17:36:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <1344288982.27828.116.camel@twins> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] rbtree: faster augmented rbtree manipulation From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 23:36:22 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <1343946858-8170-1-git-send-email-walken@google.com> <1343946858-8170-9-git-send-email-walken@google.com> <1344263140.27828.59.camel@twins> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Michel Lespinasse Cc: riel@redhat.com, daniel.santos@pobox.com, aarcange@redhat.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 14:34 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra wro= te: > > On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 15:34 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > >> +struct rb_augment_callbacks { > >> + void (*propagate)(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_node *stop); > >> + void (*copy)(struct rb_node *old, struct rb_node *new); > >> + void (*rotate)(struct rb_node *old, struct rb_node *new); > >> +}; > > > > Should we make that const pointers? Daniel? >=20 > I don't think it would hurt, but note that each function taking this > as an argument takes it as a const struct rb_augment_callbacks *, so I > doubt the extra consts would help either. IIRC Daniel found it allowed some older GCC to inline more if the function pointer itself was constant. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org