Harvey Harrison wrote:
>
> A lot of code was written assuming inline means __always_inline, I'd suggest
> keeping that assumption and working on removing inlines that aren't
> strictly necessary as there's no way to know what inlines meant 'try to
> inline'
> and what ones really should have been __always_inline.
>
> Not that I feel _that_ strongly about it.
>
Actually, we have that reasonably well down by now. There seems to be a
couple of minor tweaking still necessary, but I think we're 90-95% there
already.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
