From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next v2 2/5] rtnl/ipv6: use netconf msg to advertise forwarding status Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 05:17:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20121026.051719.783711995394609246.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1351094579-3911-3-git-send-email-nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com> <20121026.021830.1470799532580844849.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David.Laight@ACULAB.COM Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:44968 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750857Ab2JZJRV (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Oct 2012 05:17:21 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: "David Laight" Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 10:03:54 +0100 >> > +static inline int inet6_netconf_msgsize_devconf(int type) >> >> Outside of header files, we don't add explicit inlines, we let >> the compiler decide. > > Hmmm.... In my experience it makes bad decisions, > even for static functions that are only called once. > And yes, I have checked that the inlined code is smaller > and faster. This isn't for you to decide. It's been decided long ago that we're doing things tree wide doing things this way. If GCC is not perfect, submit a well formed bug report, don't complain here.