| To: | Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: reduce stack usage in xfs_bmap_btalloc() |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:23:23 -0400 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20080426202630.GG17905@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <200804261651.02078.vda.linux__2040.04651536724$1209223026$gmane$org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <87iqy4wfjq.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080426200701.GA10883@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080426202630.GG17905@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) |
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 10:26:30PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > STATIC as defined by xfs already does this.. > > Weird. Unexpected. Different from everyone else. Is this some exercise in > obfuscation? The whole STATIC thing is weird to start with.. Yes, it's kinda unexpected and at least I don't particularly liked it. But the inlining of functions with -funit-at-a-time was such a problem for the stack useage in XFS that it got added as least horrible bandaid. |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: reduce stack usage in xfs_bmap_btalloc(), Andi Kleen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: reduce stack usage in xfs_bmap_btalloc(), Denys Vlasenko |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: reduce stack usage in xfs_bmap_btalloc(), Andi Kleen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] xfs: reduce stack usage in xfs_bmap_btalloc(), Nathan Scott |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |