From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:41:59 -0800
Message-ID: <1231537320.5726.2.camel@brick>
References: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901080849550.3283@localhost.localdomain>
	 <1231434515.14304.27.camel@think.oraclecorp.com>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901080955400.3283@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20090108183306.GA22916@elte.hu> <20090108190038.GH496@one.firstfloor.org>
	 <4966AB74.2090104@zytor.com> <20090109133710.GB31845@elte.hu>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901090759420.6528@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20090109204103.GA17212@elte.hu>
	 <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901091251380.6528@localhost.localdomain>
	 <20090109213442.GA20051@elte.hu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
	Peter Morreale <pmorreale@novell.com>,
	Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@novell.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Return-path: <linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090109213442.GA20051@elte.hu>
List-ID: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 22:34 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> The naming problem remains though:
> 
> - Perhaps we could introduce a name for the first category: __must_inline? 
>   __should_inline? Not because it wouldnt mean 'always', but because it is 
>   'always inline' for another reason than the correctless __always_inline.
> 
> - Another possible approach wuld be to rename the second category to 
>   __force_inline. That would signal it rather forcefully that the inlining 
>   there is an absolute correctness issue.

__needs_inline?  That would imply that it's for correctness reasons.

Then __always_inline is left to mean that it doesn't _need_ to be inline
but we _want_ it inline regardless of what gcc thinks?

$0.02

Harvey