On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 04:03:35PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> +int btrfs_check_leaf_full(struct btrfs_root *root, struct extent_buffer
> >> *leaf)
> >> +{
> >> + return check_leaf(root, leaf, true);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +int btrfs_check_leaf_relaxed(struct btrfs_root *root,
> >> + struct extent_buffer *leaf)
> >> +{
> >> + return check_leaf(root, leaf, false);
> >> +}
> >
> > Presumably the compiler will figure it out but such trivial function are
> > usually defined straight into the header file so that the compiler
> > inlines them.
>
> In that case, the function check_leaf() must be exported, so that we can
> inline it in header.
>
> But exporting check_leaf() increases the possibility for caller to use
> it incorrectly, so I prefer no to export any internal used function.
>
>
> And compiler may or may not inline check_leaf() into
> btrfs_check_leaf_relaxed() function, but it doesn't matter.
>
> If optimization can be done by compiler, then let compiler to do it.
>
> What we should do is to ensure the abstraction/interface design is good
> enough, other than doing possible "over-optimization".
Though my original idea was closer to what Nikolay says, I'm fine with
the way you've actually implement it. We don't need the extended
check_leaf version that's hidden in the .c file.
The function inlining possibilities will be limited, but this is not a
performance critical code where the effects of inlining could be
observale in practice (I think, no numbers to back that).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
