linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: More _

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:	Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:27:55 +0530
From:	"Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
To:	"Yasunori Goto" <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	"Paul Mundt" <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Sam Ravnborg" <sam@...nborg.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: More __meminit annotations.

Hi,

On 6/18/07, Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 02:49:24PM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote:
> > > > -static inline unsigned long zone_absent_pages_in_node(int nid,
> > > > +static inline unsigned long __meminit zone_absent_pages_in_node(int nid,
> > > >                                           unsigned long zone_type,
> > > >                                           unsigned long *zholes_size)
> > > >  {
> > >
> > > I thought __meminit is not effective for these static functions,
> > > because they are inlined function. So, it depends on caller's
> > > defenition. Is it wrong?
> > >
> > Ah, that's possible, I hadn't considered that. It seems to be a bit more
> > obvious what the intention is if it's annotated, especially as this is
> > the convention that's used by the rest of mm/page_alloc.c. A bit more
> > consistent, if nothing more.
>
> I'm not sure which is intended. I found some functions define both
> __init and inline in kernel tree. And probably, some functions don't
> do it. So, it seems there is no convention.
>
> I'm Okay if you prefer both defined. :-)

Marking inline functions as __init (or __meminit etc) is quite insane,
IMHO. Note that all callers of the said inline function will also have to
be __init anyway (else modpost will barf) so the said function will
have all callsites in .init.text anyway, and hence would be inlined
in the same section as the caller (i.e. .init.text). [Note that kernel
uses always_inline.]

The annotation may still be a readability aid (which is subjective so
one can't really comment upon), but asking gcc to put into a separate
specified section, a function whose body would not be emitted by gcc
separately at all, doesn't really make much sense syntactically _or_
semantically -- gcc might not warn, of course, perhaps it's one of those
little things it takes care of by itself silently without complaining (like
taking pointers to inline functions).

Satyam
-
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/