From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
preeti.lkml@gmail.com, open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/9] cpufreq: governor: Drop __gov_queue_work()
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 07:30:44 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150908020044.GZ26760@linux> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <288361840.gGA5ernLiT@vostro.rjw.lan>
On 08-09-15, 03:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, July 27, 2015 05:58:09 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > __gov_queue_work() isn't required anymore and can be merged with
> > gov_queue_work(). Do it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>
> Quite frankly I don't see the point.
But isn't that just an unnecessary wrapper ?
> I'd even remove the inline from its definition and let the compiler decide
> what to do with it.
What if the compiler decides to link it? Why add a function call for
(almost) no use?
--
viresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-08 2:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-27 12:28 [PATCH V2 0/9] CPUFreq: governors: further cleanups Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 12:28 ` [PATCH V2 1/9] cpufreq: Use __func__ to print function's name Viresh Kumar
2015-09-07 23:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 12:28 ` [PATCH V2 2/9] cpufreq: conservative: remove 'enable' field Viresh Kumar
2015-09-08 0:17 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-08 1:33 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-09-08 1:40 ` [PATCH V3 " Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 12:28 ` [PATCH V2 3/9] cpufreq: ondemand: only queue canceled works from update_sampling_rate() Viresh Kumar
2015-09-08 1:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-08 1:58 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-09-09 1:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-09 2:30 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-09-09 20:10 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 12:28 ` [PATCH V2 4/9] cpufreq: governor: Drop __gov_queue_work() Viresh Kumar
2015-09-08 1:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-08 2:00 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2015-09-09 1:04 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-07-27 12:28 ` [PATCH V2 5/9] cpufreq: ondemand: Drop unnecessary locks from update_sampling_rate() Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 12:28 ` [PATCH V2 6/9] cpufreq: ondemand: queue work for policy->cpus together Viresh Kumar
2015-09-08 1:33 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2015-09-08 2:11 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-09-08 2:13 ` Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 12:28 ` [PATCH V2 7/9] cpufreq: ondemand: update sampling rate immidiately Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 12:28 ` [PATCH V2 8/9] cpufreq: governor: Quit work-handlers early if governor is stopped Viresh Kumar
2015-07-27 12:28 ` [PATCH V2 9/9] cpufreq: Get rid of ->governor_enabled and its lock Viresh Kumar
2015-09-03 4:44 ` [PATCH V2 0/9] CPUFreq: governors: further cleanups Viresh Kumar
2015-09-04 14:47 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150908020044.GZ26760@linux \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=preeti.lkml@gmail.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).