From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/9] cpufreq: governor: Drop __gov_queue_work() Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 07:30:44 +0530 Message-ID: <20150908020044.GZ26760@linux> References: <4f7aef4f032e082a5093b91d244647f339ef6558.1437999691.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <288361840.gGA5ernLiT@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.220.43]:36234 "EHLO mail-pa0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752431AbbIHCAt (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2015 22:00:49 -0400 Received: by padhk3 with SMTP id hk3so24393064pad.3 for ; Mon, 07 Sep 2015 19:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <288361840.gGA5ernLiT@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, preeti.lkml@gmail.com, open list 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 > > 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