From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com (mail-pa0-f51.google.com [209.85.220.51])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CE106B0088
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue,  5 Nov 2013 14:30:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ld10so9292140pab.24
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 11:30:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psmtp.com ([74.125.245.132])
        by mx.google.com with SMTP id ll9si14762560pab.327.2013.11.05.11.30.46
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>;
        Tue, 05 Nov 2013 11:30:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] MCS Lock: Make mcs_spinlock.h includable in
 other files
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131105185717.GZ16117@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <cover.1383670202.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
	 <1383673359.11046.280.camel@schen9-DESK>
	 <20131105185717.GZ16117@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 11:30:42 -0800
Message-ID: <1383679842.11046.298.camel@schen9-DESK>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: 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>, Waiman Long <waiman.long@hp.com>, 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>

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

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>