| To: | chatz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:13:15 -0600 |
| Cc: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <4563D7DD.1060907@melbourne.sgi.com> |
| References: | <45338DDE.8020903@sandeen.net> <4533FAEA.2080500@sandeen.net> <20061016232250.GM11034@melbourne.sgi.com> <1161042943.5723.117.camel@xenon.msp.redhat.com> <20061017005038.GN11034@melbourne.sgi.com> <AED98B89E193744D39BAC541@pmmelb207.melbourne.sgi.com> <20061017215706.GI8394166@melbourne.sgi.com> <1161125131.5723.158.camel@xenon.msp.redhat.com> <20061122004216.GT11034@melbourne.sgi.com> <1164157783.19915.46.camel@xenon.msp.redhat.com> <20061122042445.GR37654165@melbourne.sgi.com> <4563D7DD.1060907@melbourne.sgi.com> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Macintosh/20061025) |
David Chatterton wrote:
There will almost certainly be fallout from this change w.r.t. 4k stacks. It should probably at least be tested on 4k stacks over a fairly complex volume setup to see. Also with respect to stack usage, is there extra stack space used, in addition to the explicit %esp adjustments, to set up each function call? IOW is the total more than the sum of the parts? :) I'm glad to hear that there's no apparent performance penalty.... -eric |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] (and bad attr2 bug) - pack xfs_sb_t for 64-bit arches, Eric Sandeen |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] (and bad attr2 bug) - pack xfs_sb_t for 64-bit arches, Russell Cattelan |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static, David Chatterton |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 1/2] Make stuff static, David Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |