Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 13:03:21 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@FreeBSD.org>, Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@FreeBSD.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@FreeBSD.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r266974 - in head/sys: dev/dc dev/fxp dev/mii dev/netmap kern net Message-ID: <1401735801.20883.103.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <DA4CB2BA-A551-47A4-9E44-766FA29E2EF2@xcllnt.net> References: <201406021754.s52Hsd1B039620@svn.freebsd.org> <CAJ-VmonRqXrzrqQys_9s7-o8DFmOE_c_BZWupezm0i%2BW7E09vA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmonDJCLYWBPiz1ntFRm8aj4WQd5iHMKK0Wm3hcdjZmxghw@mail.gmail.com> <DA4CB2BA-A551-47A4-9E44-766FA29E2EF2@xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 11:42 -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Jun 2, 2014, at 11:27 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > .. and actually, bikeshedding for a moment, would we be able to move a > > lot of these accessor methods over to inlines? Would that break the > > Juniper way of doing things? > > That would definitely break Juniper as it doesn't give a stable > ABI. > > I've suggested an approach that allows for both, but it was deemed > unnecessary. The argument being that the function call overhead is > negligible. > > We can always revisit that decision if needed... > In my experience, function call overhead is anything but minimal, especially on ARM platforms. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1401735801.20883.103.camel>