Em Mon, May 05, 2008 at 12:08:11PM -0700, David Miller escreveu:
quoted text
> From: "Ilpo_Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi>
> Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 12:43:25 +0300 (EEST)
> 
> > On Mon, 5 May 2008, David Miller wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
> > > Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 09:31:15 +0200
> > > 
> > > > If we decide to uninline those functions for another reason (used too
> > > > much, code size, ...) then we can still do that.
> > > 
> > > Agreed.
> > 
> > According to my measurements the size bloat of those two is
> > (x86/32bit, gcc 4.1.2 redhat something):
> > 
> > -1091  40 funcs, 89 +, 1180 -, diff: -1091 --- skb_set_owner_r
> > -495  46 funcs, 70 +, 565 -, diff: -495 --- skb_set_owner_w
> 
> That's not too bad, but adding the WARN_ON() we're discussing
> will plump that up a bit, percentage wise, which is why I
> said we should inline it in such a case.

s/inline/uninline/g

According to some long e-mail today its worth ~198 unexport patches! 8-)

- Arnaldo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html