Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning

Linus Torvalds
2009-01-09T20:58:52Z

On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> So, should we not remove CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING, then the correct one
> would be to mark it __always_inline [__asm_inline is senseless there], or
> the second patch below that changes the bit parameter to unsigned int.

Well, I certainly don't want to _remove_ the "inline" like your patch did.
Other gcc versions will care. But I committed the pure "change to
unsigned" part.

But we should fix the cmpxchg (and perhaps plain xchg too), shouldn't we?

That your gcc version gets it right doesn't change the fact that Chris'
gcc version didn't, and out-of-lined it all. So we'll need some
__always_inlines there too..

And no, I don't think it makes any sense to call them "__asm_inline". Even
when there are asms hidden in between the C statements, what's the
difference between "always" and "asm"? None, really.

Linus