Re: [PATCH V2 4/9] cpufreq: governor: Drop __gov_queue_work()

Path	csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH V2 4/9] cpufreq: governor: Drop __gov_queue_work()
Date	Wed, 09 Sep 2015 02:40:01 +0200
Message-ID	<q6BAB-3Go-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<pQPHz-1DB-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <q6fgK-5ca-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <q6gw9-7aV-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
User-Agent	KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/4.1.0-rc5+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7Bit
Content-Type	text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
List-ID	<linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	39
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway
X-Original-Cc	linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, preeti.lkml@gmail.com, open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
X-Original-Date	Wed, 09 Sep 2015 03:04:34 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID	<1661501.6U4Cb8rbZs@vostro.rjw.lan>
X-Original-References	<cover.1437999691.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <288361840.gGA5ernLiT@vostro.rjw.lan> <20150908020044.GZ26760@linux>
X-Original-Sender	linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Xref	csiph.com linux.kernel:1221155

Show key headers only | View raw

On Tuesday, September 08, 2015 07:30:44 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 08-09-15, 03:15, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, July 27, 2015 05:58:09 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > __gov_queue_work() isn't required anymore and can be merged with
> > > gov_queue_work(). Do it.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > 
> > Quite frankly I don't see the point.
> 
> But isn't that just an unnecessary wrapper ?

It isn't a wrapper, just a separation of code executed in each step of
the loop.  There's nothing wrong with having a separate function for that
in principle.

I wouldn't make a fuss about that if that was new code even, so I don't
see why we should change it.

> > I'd even remove the inline from its definition and let the compiler decide
> > what to do with it.
> 
> What if the compiler decides to link it? Why add a function call for
> (almost) no use?

If the compiler does that, let it do it. :-)

If you think that you can outsmart the compiler people by doing such
optimizations at this level manually, you're likely wrong.  Serious
man-hours go into making that stuff work as well as it can in compilers.

Thanks,
Rafael

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH V2 4/9] cpufreq: governor: Drop __gov_queue_work() "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2015-09-08 02:50 +0200
  Re: [PATCH V2 4/9] cpufreq: governor: Drop __gov_queue_work() Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2015-09-08 04:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH V2 4/9] cpufreq: governor: Drop __gov_queue_work() "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2015-09-09 02:40 +0200

csiph-web