On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 17:18, Aaron Lehmann wrote: > These are usually error conditions. If you inline them, you will have > to jump *over* them as part of the normal code path. You don't save You're wrong. You wouldn't have to jump over them any more than you have to jump over the "goto" statement. They would be where the goto statement is. Instead of the goto you would have the function. > any instructions, and you end up with a kernel which has much more > duplicated code and thus thrashes the cache more. It also makes the If that argument was taken to it's logical conclusion (and I did, in my mind just now), no one should add any code the grows the kernel at all. -Rob - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Follow-Ups:
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Sean Neakums
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Aaron Lehmann
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Oliver Neukum
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rik van Riel
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Linus Torvalds
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Matti Aarnio
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rik van Riel
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Aaron Lehmann
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Rob Wilkens
- Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?Aaron Lehmann
- Prev by Date: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
- Next by Date: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*? -> goto example
- Previous by thread: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
- Next by thread: Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]