David wrote:
+static inline int mpol_store_user_nodemask(const struct mempolicy *pol)
+{
+ return !!(pol->flags & MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES);
+}
Why the double-negative? As best as I can tell, the return value of
mpol_store_user_nodemask() is only used in conditional contexts:
$ grep mpol_store_user_nodemask mm/mempolicy.c
static inline int mpol_store_user_nodemask(const struct mempolicy *pol)
if (mpol_store_user_nodemask(policy))
if (!mpol_store_user_nodemask(a))
if (!mpol_store_user_nodemask(pol) &&
So I see no need to waste the instructions needed (in the three copies
of this code, since it's static inline) to convert a non-zero value to
exactly the value 1.
Hmmm ... speaking of static inline ... I can knock 600 bytes (that's
IA64 bytes, so equivalent to about 300 x86 bytes) off the kernel text
size by not inlining the mm/mempolicy.c routines check_pgd_range() and
interleave_nid(). I wonder if that would be worth doing. Perhaps
those two routines are in sufficiently tight corners that the duplicate
copies of them is needed.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.940.382.4214
--
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/
