Ingo Molnar wrote: > > My goal is to make the kernel smaller and faster, and as far as the > placement of 'inline' keywords goes, i dont have too strong feelings about > how it's achieved: they have a certain level of documentation value > [signalling that a function is _intended_ to be lightweight] but otherwise > they are pretty neutral attributes to me. > As far as naming is concerned, gcc effectively supports four levels, which *currently* map onto macros as follows: __always_inline Inline unconditionally inline Inlining hint <nothing> Standard heuristics noinline Uninline unconditionally A lot of noise is being made about the naming of the levels (and I personally believe we should have a different annotation for "inline unconditionally for correctness" and "inline unconditionally for performance", as a documentation issue), but those are the four we get. -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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
