[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:17:14 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@...il.com>, lenb@...nel.org,
astarikovskiy@...e.de, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] acpi/battery.c: make 2 functions static
* Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:57:20AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 09:26:41PM +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote:
> > > > May I keep them inline?
> > >
> > > The problem with such manual inlines is that we force gcc to always
> > > inline them - and history has shown that functions grow without the
> > > "inline" being removed.
> >
> > what do you mean by "we force gcc to always inline them"?
>
> #define inline inline __attribute__((always_inline))
>
> > gcc is free to decide whether to inline or to not inline.
>
> Not with __attribute__((always_inline)).
but that wasnt used in the code you patched:
-inline int acpi_battery_present(struct acpi_battery *battery)
+static int acpi_battery_present(struct acpi_battery *battery)
> > (and CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING got removed from 2.6.25)
>
> CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING never had any effect.
my experience was that it had effects. Why do you say it 'never had any
effect'?
Ingo
--
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