From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 23 01:09:05 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 906F037B401; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (storm.FreeBSD.org.uk [194.242.157.42]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 877C243F93; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:09:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: from storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (Ugrondar@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by storm.FreeBSD.org.uk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6N893Ho099299; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:09:03 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) Received: (from Ugrondar@localhost)h6N893Ba099295; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:09:03 +0100 (BST) X-Authentication-Warning: storm.FreeBSD.org.uk: Ugrondar set sender to mark@grondar.org using -f Received: from grondar.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])h6N852Z2071570; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:05:02 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@grondar.org) From: Mark Murray Message-Id: <200307230805.h6N852Z2071570@grimreaper.grondar.org> To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:53:57 +0200." <20846.1058946837@critter.freebsd.dk> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:05:02 +0100 Sender: mark@grondar.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,FROM_NO_LOWER,IN_REP_TO, QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES version=2.55 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern init_main.c kern_malloc.c md5c.c subr_autoconf.c subr_mbuf.c subr_prf.c tty_subr.c vfs_cluster.c vfs_subr.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 08:09:05 -0000 "Poul-Henning Kamp" writes: > Fine fine fine! It was meant to make it easier for people to justify > inlines, but if you don't like it we'll stick with only the hard > way: > > Nothing should be inlined unless it has a demonstrated, > measurable positive effect. > > Or put even more bluntly: > > Don't add inlines you haven't benchmarked. Much better. I have a preference for the first, with the second being an example of how to achieve the first. M -- Mark Murray iumop ap!sdn w,I idlaH