On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 02:41:00PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:25:36 +0200 (EET) > "Pekka Enberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 3/19/2007, "Andrew Morton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Would prefer to do: > > > > > > static inline void kmem_cache_free_if_not_null(struct kmem_cache *cachep, > > > void *objp) > > > { > > > if (objp) > > > kmem_cache_free(cachep, objp); > > > } > > > > > > so that we don't add extra overhead to all the thousands of existing, > > > well-behaved callsites. > > > > That bloats kernel text all the same > > But only for those callsites which choose to use it! We avoid adding a > test-and-branch to those thousands of callsite which don't need it. > > This is a super-hot path.
You're right about that. Perhaps there's some clever exception handling thing we can do to eliminate the hot-path overhead. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/