From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758159AbXIIP3r (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Sep 2007 11:29:47 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757491AbXIIP3h (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Sep 2007 11:29:37 -0400 Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:45134 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757481AbXIIP3g (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Sep 2007 11:29:36 -0400 Message-ID: <46E4115E.7050203@garzik.org> Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 11:29:34 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Wilcox CC: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/22] advansys: Eliminate prototypes References: <20070909145358.GG6809@parisc-linux.org> <11893498072821-git-send-email-matthew@wil.cx> In-Reply-To: <11893498072821-git-send-email-matthew@wil.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.4 (----) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.1.9 on srv5.dvmed.net summary: Content analysis details: (-4.4 points, 5.0 required) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Matthew Wilcox wrote: > Rearrange a lot of the functions in the file to get rid of all the forward > declarations. What thoughts, if any, have been given to post-patch code arrangement, besides eliminating prototypes? This always struck me as a counterproductive exercise when taken by itself. Sure, prototypes were eliminated, but was code packed together in an efficient way afterwards? Ideally hot path code should be close together, ditto for various other things like error handling code. Without further explanation or details about your post-patch analysis, how do we even know the new code arrangement doesn't negatively impact i-cache overall? Jeff