[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260128034405.GD2718@sol>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 19:44:05 -0800
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>,
Andrey Albershteyn <aalbersh@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, fsverity@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/16] fsverity: use a hashtable to find the fsverity_info
On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 04:35:19AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Is there a reason for this function in particular to be __always_inline?
> > fsverity_get_info() is just inline.
>
> Without the __always_inline some gcc versions on sparc fail to inline it,
> and cause a link failure due to a reference to fsverity_readahead in
> f2fs_mpage_readpages for non-verity builds. (reported by the buildbot)
The relevant code is:
vi = f2fs_need_verity(inode, folio->index);
if (vi)
fsverity_readahead(vi, folio, nr_pages);
Where:
f2fs_need_verity()
=> fsverity_get_info()
=> fsverity_active()
If fsverity_active() needs __always_inline, why don't the other two
functions in the call chain need it?
- Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists