Re: [PATCH v2 03/13] rust: lock: introduce `Mutex`

Marco Elver
2023-04-06T11:22:11Z

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 10:38, David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
>
> From: Peter Zijlstra
> > Sent: 05 April 2023 21:50
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 05:40:39PM -0300, Wedson Almeida Filho wrote:
> ...
> > > So the situation is improved in that we don't need to manually write (and
> > > commit) the helpers. It may improve further in the future if we get better
> > > integration of the languages.
> >
> > But yeah, feel free to convert macros to inline functions where the
> > difference is moot. There is indeed no real reason for mutex_lock() to
> > not be an inline function in that case.
>
> mutex_lock() is probably ok.
> But there are cases where gcc generates much better code
> for #defines than for inline functions.
> Almost certainly because the front end gets to optimise
> #defines, but inlines are done much later on.

For macro to inline function conversions, the most conservative option
would be __always_inline. We've also seen things go wrong with
"inline" only paired with various kinds of instrumentation.

Can bindgen deal with "static __always_inline" functions?