From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755325Ab3KES54 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 13:57:56 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:37468 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752906Ab3KES5x (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 13:57:53 -0500 Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 19:57:17 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Tim Chen Cc: Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Waiman Long , Andrea Arcangeli , Alex Shi , Andi Kleen , Michel Lespinasse , Davidlohr Bueso , Matthew R Wilcox , Dave Hansen , Rik van Riel , Peter Hurley , "Paul E.McKenney" , Raghavendra K T , George Spelvin , "H. Peter Anvin" , Arnd Bergmann , Aswin Chandramouleeswaran , Scott J Norton , Will Deacon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] MCS Lock: Make mcs_spinlock.h includable in other files Message-ID: <20131105185717.GZ16117@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1383673359.11046.280.camel@schen9-DESK> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1383673359.11046.280.camel@schen9-DESK> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:42:39AM -0800, Tim Chen wrote: > + * The _raw_mcs_spin_lock() function should not be called directly. Instead, > + * users should call mcs_spin_lock(). > */ > -static noinline > -void mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node) > +static inline > +void _raw_mcs_spin_lock(struct mcs_spinlock **lock, struct mcs_spinlock *node) > { > struct mcs_spinlock *prev; > So why keep it in the header at all?