linux-kernel - Re: [2.6 patch] acpi/battery.c: make 2 functions static

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:31:03 +0100
From:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@...il.com>, lenb@...nel.org,
	astarikovskiy@...e.de, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] acpi/battery.c: make 2 functions static

On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 10:17:14AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:57:20AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 09:26:41PM +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> > > > > May I keep them inline?
> > > > 
> > > > The problem with such manual inlines is that we force gcc to always 
> > > > inline them - and history has shown that functions grow without the 
> > > > "inline" being removed.
> > > 
> > > what do you mean by "we force gcc to always inline them"?
> > 
> > #define inline          inline          __attribute__((always_inline))
> > 
> > > gcc is free to decide whether to inline or to not inline.
> > 
> > Not with __attribute__((always_inline)).
> 
> but that wasnt used in the code you patched:
> 
>   -inline int acpi_battery_present(struct acpi_battery *battery)
>   +static int acpi_battery_present(struct acpi_battery *battery)

>From compiler-gcc.h:

#define inline          inline          __attribute__((always_inline))

So unless I am missing something obvious then each time we
say inline to a function we require gcc to inline the function.

It is my impression that today we only say inline if really needed
and otherwise let gcc decide. So in almost all cases inlise should
just be nuked?

	Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/