On 07:01 Mon 23 Jun , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > Inlining is only a hint to the compiler and given the over(ab)use of > inline in OpenSM (by my count almost 500 instances) I doubt this has the > intended effect.
I asked in order to understand about are there any specific reasons for this patch or just it is "nice to have" stuff (and not to mark my disagreement). > Are the inlines really needed in these two cases ? Inlining is potential optimization and as you said it is optional, so word "needed" is not the best which describes this :) I likely fine about the first case (especially about osm_port_prof_set_ignored_port()), but the second function really looks as "one-line stuff" for me. > In general, I think OpenSM needs a more careful look as to what really > needs inlining. Sure. Agreed here. > > Would be nice to not mix in one patch. > > Already done on list. Thanks. Sasha _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
