From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 13:50:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <1231434515.14304.27.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20090108183306.GA22916@elte.hu> <20090108190038.GH496@one.firstfloor.org> <4966AB74.2090104@zytor.com> <20090109133710.GB31845@elte.hu> <20090109204103.GA17212@elte.hu> <20090109213442.GA20051@elte.hu> <1231537320.5726.2.camel@brick> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andi Kleen , Chris Mason , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins , Matthew Wilcox , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Nick Piggin , Peter Morreale , Sven Dietrich To: Harvey Harrison Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1231537320.5726.2.camel@brick> List-ID: On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Harvey Harrison wrote: > > __needs_inline? That would imply that it's for correctness reasons. .. but the point is, we have _thousands_ of inlines, and do you know which is which? We've historically forced them to be inlined, and every time somebody does that "OPTIMIZE_INLINE=y", something simply _breaks_. So instead of just continually hitting our head against this wall because some people seem to be convinced that gcc can do a good job, just do it the other way around. Make the new one be "inline_hint" (no underscores needed, btw), and there is ansolutely ZERO confusion about what it means. At that point, everybody knows why it's there, and it's clearly not a correctness issue or anything else. Of course, at that point you might as well argue that the thing should not exist at all, and that such a flag should just be removed entirely. Which I certainly agree with - I think the only flag we need is "inline", and I think it should mean what it damn well says. Linus