From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 26 Nov 2006 06:06:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id kAQE6iaG015090 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2006 06:06:45 -0800 Message-ID: <45699F40.9090700@sandeen.net> Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:05:52 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static References: <45338DDE.8020903@sandeen.net> <4533FAEA.2080500@sandeen.net> <20061016232250.GM11034@melbourne.sgi.com> <1161042943.5723.117.camel@xenon.msp.redhat.com> <20061017005038.GN11034@melbourne.sgi.com> <20061017215706.GI8394166@melbourne.sgi.com> <1161125131.5723.158.camel@xenon.msp.redhat.com> <20061122004216.GT11034@melbourne.sgi.com> <1164157783.19915.46.camel@xenon.msp.redhat.com> <20061122042445.GR37654165@melbourne.sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20061122042445.GR37654165@melbourne.sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: David Chinner Cc: Russell Cattelan , Tim Shimmin , xfs@oss.sgi.com David Chinner wrote: > Performance appears to be slight faster with the noinline > patch, but the variation is within the error margins of > my measurements so I'd say it's neutral. > > Comments? with fewer inlines & more function calls, what about stack frames adding up? can we measure that? -Eric