linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] rbtree: add __rb_change

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 6 Aug 2012 17:04:18 -0700
From:	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	riel@...hat.com, daniel.santos@...ox.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
	dwmw2@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] rbtree: add __rb_change_child() helper function

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 15:34 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
>> +static inline void
>
> I would make that __always_inline, just to make sure GCC doesn't go
> creative on us.

How strongly do you care ? I'm not sure it makes sense to change it
unless we also change every other inline function in that file. I'd
rather not do that until we hear of gcc actually breaking things.

(BTW, did you know that sometimes gcc generates different code when
you change from inline to always_inline, even though things were
already inlined before ? I really hate dealing with gcc crap like
that, makes me want to forget about inline functions and just do it
all with preprocessor abuse...)

-- 
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
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/