From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752851AbbIHCAv (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2015 22:00:51 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.220.47]:33736 "EHLO mail-pa0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752296AbbIHCAt (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Sep 2015 22:00:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 07:30:44 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, preeti.lkml@gmail.com, open list Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/9] cpufreq: governor: Drop __gov_queue_work() 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 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <288361840.gGA5ernLiT@vostro.rjw.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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