linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] prepare kconfig inline optimization for all architectures

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]

Message-Id: <1209329514.4868.57.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date:	Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:51:54 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	linux arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] prepare kconfig inline optimization for all
	architectures


On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 20:47 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 10:32:28AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > 
> > > I'm looking at it from a different angle, all code in the kernel should 
> > > follow the following rules [1]:
> > > - no functions in .c files should be marked inline
> > > - all functions in headers should be static inline
> > > - all functions in headers should either be very small or collapse
> > >   to become very small after inlining
> > > 
> > > I can simply not see any usecase for a non-forced inline in the kernel,
> > > and fixing the kernel should give a superset of the space savings of 
> > > this "inline optimization".
> > 
> > Your whole argument is premised on the assumption that the compiler does 
> > the right thing.
> >...
> 
> No, you seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying.
> 
> Status Quo as of 2.6.25:
> - we force the compiler to always inline with "inline"

What is wrong with that?  I believe the term is 'directive'.

> - we have inline's in .c files and too big functions in headers, and
>   both of them are wrong

Yes, correct the source.

> "inline optimization":
> - we leave the compiler the choice whether or not to inline with "inline"

How did it come to pass that we invented such a thing as an optional
directive?

	-Mike

--
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/