On Tue, Oct 28 2025 at 10:24, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > On 2025-10-27 04:44, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> From: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> >> >> Replace the open coded implementation with the new get/put_user_inline() >> helpers. This might be replaced by a regular get/put_user(), but that needs >> a proper performance evaluation. > > I understand that this is aiming to keep the same underlying code, > but I find it surprising that the first user of the "inline" get/put > user puts the burden of the proof on moving this to regular > get/put_user() rather than on using the inlined version. > > The comment above the inline API clearly states that performance > numbers are needed to justify the use of inline, not the opposite. > > I am concerned that this creates a precedent that may be used by future > users of the inline API to use it without performance numbers > justification.
There was not justification for the open coded inline either and converting it to get/put must be a completely seperate change.
