[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:39:33 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
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
* Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:
> >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?
no, what we should nuke is this always_inline definition. That was
always the intention of FORCED_INLINE, and the removal of FORCED_INLINE
was to _remove the forcing_, not to make it unconditional.
so Adrian, if you knew about this bug all along, you might as well have
reported it :-/
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists