linux-kernel - Re: [announce] new tree: "fix all build warnings, on all configs" II

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:	Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:30:22 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [announce] new tree: "fix all build warnings, on all configs" II

Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> writes:
>>  		if (battery->have_sysfs_alarm)
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c
>> index d13194a..2276d75 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c
>> @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ void __init acpi_old_suspend_ordering(void)
>>  /**
>>   *	acpi_pm_disable_gpes - Disable the GPEs.
>>   */
>> -static int acpi_pm_disable_gpes(void)
>> +static inline int acpi_pm_disable_gpes(void)
>
> Just to satisfy my curiosity, what compiler warning does marking functions inline 
> fix?

No reply. 

General note: ignoring review comments does not make the problems go away.

The reason I asked is that the patch is very likely wrong.

AFAIK the only warning that can be fixed by this inline would
be a linker section mismatch (that is why I asked).

But for linker section mismatch this is not the correct
change:

- inline is only advisory and gcc is free to disregard it.
So you could get the warning back any time.
- If you really want inlining for correctness you need
to use __always_inline
- Or if it's really to satisfy a linker section mismatch 
it's typically better to just declare all inlined functions
in the correct section, e.g. __init

Please fix this properly.

Thanks,
-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com
--
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/