Re: [PATCH -v7][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning

[H. Peter Anvin]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>  
>> -static inline int constant_test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
>> +static __asm_inline int
>> +constant_test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
>>  {
>>  	return ((1UL << (nr % BITS_PER_LONG)) &
>>  		(((unsigned long *)addr)[nr / BITS_PER_LONG])) != 0;
> 
> Thios makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> It's called "__always_inline", not __asm_inline.
> 
> Why add a new nonsensical annotations like that?
> 

__asm_inline was my suggestion, to distinguish "inline this
unconditionally because gcc screws up in the presence of asm()" versus
"inline this unconditionally because the world ends if it isn't" -- to
tell the human reader, not gcc.  I guess the above is a good indicator
that the __asm_inline might have been a bad name.

	-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-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/