[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080414085307.GG19865@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:53:07 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Cc: Jacek Luczak <difrost.kernel@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: pgtable_32.h - prototype and section mismatch
fixes
* Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org> wrote:
> > hm, that's an interesting case: we need those annotations probably
> > because gcc decided to not inline those functions. (this is possible
> > via the new CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y option) Sam, what's your take
> > on that?
>
> gcc uses different heuristics for inlining between the different
> versions. Therefore to achieve somehow predictable results I added
> -fno-inline-functions-called-once when CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH
> is enabled.
>
> So in the above case for any normal kernel build we would see that gcc
> inlined the above and everything is fine. But for the
> CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMTCH cases we do not inline and thus we see
> that we have a section mismatch.
ah, ok. So i guess this will result in a few isolated cases of __init
annotations added to inline functions - Jacek fixed one such case - but
it should not result in the general spreading of __init annotations to
inline functions, correct? (which i was worried about)
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