From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262152AbVAJIop (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:44:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262154AbVAJIop (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:44:45 -0500 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([205.233.218.70]:40458 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262152AbVAJIon (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:44:43 -0500 Subject: Re: make flock_lock_file_wait static From: Arjan van de Ven To: Ken Preslan Cc: Trond Myklebust , viro@zenII.uk.linux.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: <20050110083524.GA9750@potassium.msp.redhat.com> References: <20050109194209.GA7588@infradead.org> <1105310650.11315.19.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20050110083524.GA9750@potassium.msp.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:44:33 +0100 Message-Id: <1105346673.4171.20.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.1 (++++) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 2.63 on canuck.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (4.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.3 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains a numeric HELO 1.1 RCVD_IN_DSBL RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [] 2.5 RCVD_IN_DYNABLOCK RBL: Sent directly from dynamic IP address [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] 0.1 RCVD_IN_SORBS RBL: SORBS: sender is listed in SORBS [80.57.133.107 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by canuck.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 02:35 -0600, Ken Preslan wrote: > On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 05:44:10PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > su den 09.01.2005 Klokka 19:42 (+0000) skreiv Arjan van de Ven: > > > Hi, > > > > > > the patch below makes flock_lock_file_wait static, because it is only used > > > (once) in fs/locks.c. Making it static allows gcc to generate better code > > > (partial or entirely inlining it, gcc 3.4 also optimizes the calling > > > convention for static functions which are guaranteed only local to the file) > > > > Veto. That function is also there for those filesystems that need to > > mirror their locks in the VFS. I believe the GFS people are already > > using it (they implemented all this anyway), and sooner or later, NFS is > > going to have to do it too... > > I second the veto. GFS does use this interface. > when are you going to propose GFS for inclusion? Is that next week or is that months out? Is that really worth bloating everyones kernel until then ?