[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1198031400.7734.41.camel@brick>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:30:00 -0800
From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@...il.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
prasanna@...ibm.com, anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com,
davem@...emloft.net, systemtap-ml <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86: add kprobe-booster to X86_64
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 08:50 -0500, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Hi Harvey,
>
> Thank you for cleaning this up.
>
> Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > Subject: [PATCH] x86: kprobes leftover cleanups
> >
> > Eliminate __always_inline, all of these static functions are
> > only called once. Minor whitespace cleanup. Eliminate one
> > supefluous return at end of void function. Reverse sense of
> > #ifndef to be #ifdef to show the case only affects X86_32.
>
> Unfortunately, to prevent kprobe recursive call, all functions which
> is called from kprobes must be inlined or have __kprobes.
> If __always_inline macro still work, I prefer to use it. If not,
> it must have a __kprobe attribute like as below.
I thought all static functions that were only called once were
automatically inlined these days? Otherwise __always_inline and
inline are exactly the same in the kernel.
Harvey
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists