New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

os/bluestore: cleanup, got rid of table reference of 1<<x #13718

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 20, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@aclamk
Contributor

aclamk commented Mar 1, 2017

Eradication of m_bit_to_mask is accompanied with code that allows inline of bit primitives. Otherwise speedup won't occur.

Signed-off-by: Adam Kupczyk akupczyk@mirantis.com

static bmap_t align_mask(int x);
static bmap_t bit_mask(int bit_num);
bmap_t atomic_fetch();
static bmap_t full_bmask() {

This comment has been minimized.

@varadakari

varadakari Mar 1, 2017

Contributor

do we need to specify inline here? Not sure if compiler can do it with O3 or O2

@varadakari

varadakari Mar 1, 2017

Contributor

do we need to specify inline here? Not sure if compiler can do it with O3 or O2

This comment has been minimized.

@aclamk

aclamk Mar 2, 2017

Contributor

@varadakari : No. Inline is unneded in declaration. It could not be inline in declaration because it will be local to compilation unit. (some of out unit tests will not work)
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9734175/why-are-class-member-functions-inlined
"A member function may be defined (8.4) in its class definition, in which case it is an inline member function (7.1.2) ..."
http://www.lcdf.org/c%2B%2B/clause9.html

@aclamk

aclamk Mar 2, 2017

Contributor

@varadakari : No. Inline is unneded in declaration. It could not be inline in declaration because it will be local to compilation unit. (some of out unit tests will not work)
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9734175/why-are-class-member-functions-inlined
"A member function may be defined (8.4) in its class definition, in which case it is an inline member function (7.1.2) ..."
http://www.lcdf.org/c%2B%2B/clause9.html

@varadakari

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@varadakari

varadakari Mar 1, 2017

Contributor

LGTM

Contributor

varadakari commented Mar 1, 2017

LGTM

@shinobu-x

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@shinobu-x

shinobu-x Mar 1, 2017

Contributor

jenkins test this please

Contributor

shinobu-x commented Mar 1, 2017

jenkins test this please

@liewegas liewegas added the bluestore label Mar 1, 2017

@liewegas liewegas changed the title from Bluestore : cleanup, got rid of table reference of 1<<x to os/bluestore: cleanup, got rid of table reference of 1<<x Mar 1, 2017

@liewegas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@liewegas

liewegas Mar 3, 2017

Member

rebase please?

Member

liewegas commented Mar 3, 2017

rebase please?

Bluestore : cleanup, got rid of table reference of 1<<x
Signed-off-by: Adam Kupczyk <akupczyk@mirantis.com>

@tchaikov tchaikov merged commit a824249 into ceph:master Mar 20, 2017

3 checks passed

Signed-off-by all commits in this PR are signed
Details
Unmodifed Submodules submodules for project are unmodified
Details
default Build finished.
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment