linux-kernel - Re: Status of CONFIG_FORCED

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]

Message-ID: <46549937.1030306@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 May 2007 12:42:47 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Status of CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING?

Rob Landley wrote:
> I notice that feature-removal-schedule.txt has CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING 
> scheduled to go away most of a year ago.  My question is what replaces it:
> 
> Does #define inline __always_inline become the new standard and uses of 
> __always_inline be removed, or should all instances of "inline" either be 
> removed or replaced with __always_inline?  (Or are there going to be two 
> keywords meaning exactly the same thing going forward?)

it should be that we do not force gcc to inline on the "normal" inline 
keyword, and we mark the cases that HAVE to be inlined for correctness 
reasons as __always_inline.
-
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/