[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48031CF0.5060409@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:59:28 +0200
From: Jacek Luczak <difrost.kernel@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: pgtable_32.h - prototype and section mismatch fixes
Ingo Molnar pisze:
> * 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)
>
Yep, I was confused about that patch, thus I didn't sent it previously.
Hmm...I forgot that all my kernels where compiled with
CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y. There's no mismatch warning printed while
OPTIMIZE_INLINING is not set. Also I've made a fast look into objects and looks
like those two functions are really inlined. I will also take a look on those
functions with CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y && ONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH=n.
-Jacek
--
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