[PATCH] uninline __sigqueue_alloc (fwd)

[Adrian Bunk]

The patch forwarded below still applies against 2.6.10-rc1-mm2.

Was there any specific reason why it wasn't applied?


----- Forwarded message from Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx> -----

Date:	Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:35:51 -0700
From: Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx>
To: torvalds@xxxxxxxx
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [PATCH] uninline __sigqueue_alloc

Christoph suggests letting the compiler choose.  No real compelling reason
to inline anyhow.  I had some vmlinux size numbers suggesting inline was
better, but re-running them on newer kernel is giving different results,
favoring uninline.  Best let compiler choose.  Un-inline __sigqueue_alloc.

Signed-off-by: Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx>

===== kernel/signal.c 1.140 vs edited =====
--- 1.140/kernel/signal.c	2004-10-21 13:46:54 -07:00
+++ edited/kernel/signal.c	2004-10-22 14:00:00 -07:00
@@ -265,7 +265,7 @@
 	return sig;
 }
 
-static inline struct sigqueue *__sigqueue_alloc(struct task_struct *t, int flags)
+static struct sigqueue *__sigqueue_alloc(struct task_struct *t, int flags)
 {
 	struct sigqueue *q = NULL;
 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

----- End forwarded message -----

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