On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 16:46 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:17:25PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 13:56 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:42:20PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > > > > Why the move to in-line this implementation? It looks like a fairly big > > > function. > > > > I agree it's not pretty. > > > I'm not beholden to v3 though if you hate it. > > I don't mind; its just that I am in a similar boat with qspinlock and > chose the other option. So I just figured I'd ask :-)
OK. I'll go with inline and we'll see which version gets "cleaned-up" by a janitor first ;) cheers
