From: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
LM Sensors <lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6] (10/11) hwmon vs i2c, second round
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 23:02:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050731230259.05625a4e.khali@linux-fr.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050731205650.GA3963@mipter.zuzino.mipt.ru>
Hi Alexey,
> > I see very little reason why vid_from_reg and vid_to_reg are
> > inlined. The former is not exactly short,
>
> 1)
> and their arguments aren't known at
> compile time,
>
> [Compiler can optimise them away _completely_ if both arguments are
> known at compile time or significantly of only one is known.]
Good point, I'll try to remember that. It doesn't apply here though
except for lm78 I think, and maybe lm93 when it gets ported. That's not
the majority of users though, so I still believe uninlining is the
correct decision.
> > and they are never called in speed critical areas. Uninlining them
> > should cause little performance loss if any, and saves a signficant
> > space and compilation time as well.
>
> 2) VID_FROM_REG is asking for removal from lm85.
True, I wrote a patch doing this already:
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/2005-July/013148.html
Just wait for Greg to pick it and it'll show in -mm.
> 3) vid_to_reg is used only by atxp1.
That's right. Do you suggest that it should be kept inlined then?
Similar drivers may be written in the future, causing vid_to_reg to gain
users and possibly grow larger (to support more VRM/VRD standards), then
we'll certainly want to uninline it anyway - but I agree that this ain't
the case at the moment.
I'll change that patch to only uninline vid_from_reg and not vid_to_reg
if a majority prefers me to do so.
Thanks for your comments :)
--
Jean Delvare
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-31 21:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-07-31 18:59 [PATCH 2.6] (0/11) hwmon vs i2c, second round Jean Delvare
2005-07-31 19:20 ` [PATCH 2.6] (1/11) " Jean Delvare
2005-07-31 19:33 ` [PATCH 2.6] (2/11) " Jean Delvare
2005-07-31 19:36 ` [PATCH 2.6] (3/11) " Jean Delvare
2005-07-31 19:42 ` [PATCH 2.6] (4/11) " Jean Delvare
2005-07-31 19:45 ` [PATCH 2.6] (5/11) " Jean Delvare
2005-07-31 19:49 ` [PATCH 2.6] (6/11) " Jean Delvare
2005-07-31 19:52 ` [PATCH 2.6] (7/11) " Jean Delvare
2005-07-31 19:54 ` [PATCH 2.6] (8/11) " Jean Delvare
2005-07-31 19:57 ` [PATCH 2.6] (9/11) " Jean Delvare
2005-07-31 20:02 ` [PATCH 2.6] (10/11) " Jean Delvare
2005-07-31 20:56 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2005-07-31 21:02 ` Jean Delvare [this message]
2005-08-01 20:50 ` [PATCH 2.6] (10/11, revised) " Jean Delvare
2005-07-31 20:12 ` [PATCH 2.6] (11/11) " Jean Delvare
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=20050731230259.05625a4e.khali@linux-fr.org \
--to=khali@linux-fr.org \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org \
/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