linux-kernel - Re: [2.6 patch] acpi/battery.c: make 2 functions static

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, 3 Mar 2008 11:39:33 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	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


* Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:

> >From compiler-gcc.h:
> >
> > #define inline          inline          __attribute__((always_inline))
> 
> So unless I am missing something obvious then each time we say inline 
> to a function we require gcc to inline the function.
> 
> It is my impression that today we only say inline if really needed and 
> otherwise let gcc decide. So in almost all cases inlise should just be 
> nuked?

no, what we should nuke is this always_inline definition. That was 
always the intention of FORCED_INLINE, and the removal of FORCED_INLINE 
was to _remove the forcing_, not to make it unconditional.

so Adrian, if you knew about this bug all along, you might as well have 
reported it :-/

	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/