Re: [PATCH] readahead: initial method - expected read size - fix fastcall

Arjan van de Ven
2006-06-05T08:01:04Z

On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 03:17 +0200, Voluspa wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jun 2006 11:25:03 +0200 Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-06-04 at 02:07 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 15:34:15 +0800
> > > Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > >
> > > > Remove 'fastcall' directive for function readahead_close().
> > > >
> > > > It has drawn concerns from Andrew Morton.
> > >
> > > Well. I think fastcall is ugly and vaguely silly. Now if we has a
> > > really_really_fastcall then I'd like to use that!
> > >
> > >
> > > > Now I have some benchmarks
> > > > on it, and proved it as a _false_ optimization.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I don't believe this will be measurable (and with CONFIG_REGPARM
> > > it'll be a no-op).
> >
> > we should just make CONFIG_REGPARM be "it" always (and thus make it go
> > away as config option) and then just remove all "fastcall" from the
> > kernel...
>
> Wu, I don't know anything about REGPARM, which my x86_64 config doesn't have,

because it doesn't need it since it's default for that architecture