From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com>
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15])
	by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m3QKMgk0027969
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:22:50 -0700
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:23:23 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: reduce stack usage in xfs_bmap_btalloc()
Message-ID: <20080426202323.GA14245@infradead.org>
References: <200804261651.02078.vda.linux__2040.04651536724$1209223026$gmane$org@googlemail.com> <87iqy4wfjq.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20080426200701.GA10883@infradead.org> <20080426202630.GG17905@one.firstfloor.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080426202630.GG17905@one.firstfloor.org>
Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com
Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com
List-Id: xfs
To: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>, David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>, xfs@oss.sgi.com, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 10:26:30PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > STATIC as defined by xfs already does this..
> 
> Weird. Unexpected. Different from everyone else. Is this some exercise in 
> obfuscation?

The whole STATIC thing is weird to start with..

Yes, it's kinda unexpected and at least I don't particularly liked it.
But the inlining of functions with -funit-at-a-time was such a problem
for the stack useage in XFS that it got added as least horrible bandaid.