From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754646Ab3KFPcK (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:32:10 -0500
Received: from g4t0016.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.19]:27635 "EHLO
	g4t0016.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754443Ab3KFPcI (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 6 Nov 2013 10:32:08 -0500
Message-ID: <527A60E3.3000106@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 10:31:47 -0500
From: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130109 Thunderbird/10.0.12
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
        Matthew R Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
        "Paul E.McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>,
        Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hp.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] MCS Lock: Make mcs_spinlock.h includable in other
 files
References: <cover.1383670202.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>  <1383673359.11046.280.camel@schen9-DESK>  <20131105185717.GZ16117@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1383679842.11046.298.camel@schen9-DESK>
In-Reply-To: <1383679842.11046.298.camel@schen9-DESK>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 11/05/2013 02:30 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 19:57 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:42:39AM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
>>> + * The _raw_mcs_spin_lock() function should not be called directly. Instead,
>>> + * users should call mcs_spin_lock().
>>>    */
>>> -static noinline
>>> -void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>>> +static inline
>>> +void _raw_mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node)
>>>   {
>>>   	struct mcs_spinlock *prev;
>>>
>> So why keep it in the header at all?
> I also made the suggestion originally of keeping both lock and unlock in
> mcs_spinlock.c.  Wonder if Waiman decides to keep them in header
> because in-lining the unlock function makes execution a bit faster?
>
> Tim
>

I was following the example of the spinlock code where the lock function 
is not inlined, but the unlock function is. I have no objection to make 
them both as non-inlined functions, if you think that is the right move.

Regards,
Longman