linux-kernel - Re: Introduce down

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20080418153455.4d0bee30.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:34:55 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Introduce down_killable()

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:05:06 GMT
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> wrote:

> --- a/kernel/semaphore.c
> +++ b/kernel/semaphore.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
>  
>  static noinline void __down(struct semaphore *sem);
>  static noinline int __down_interruptible(struct semaphore *sem);
> +static noinline int __down_killable(struct semaphore *sem);
>  static noinline void __up(struct semaphore *sem);

What is the reason for all the noinlines in this file?

Something to do with getting proper wchan output?  I guess it doesn't hurt
from a documentation POV, but did you find that it was actually necessary?

IOW: is gcc now capable of secretly inlining functions which are defined
further ahead in the compilation unit?

(did you actually "test" the wchan stuff, btw?)
--
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/