linux-kernel - Re: [2.6 patch] fs/block_dev.c:I

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:	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:12:02 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
	jdike@...toit.com
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] fs/block_dev.c:I_BDEV() mustn't be inline

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 05:41:11PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> There is NO WAY IN HELL this function shouldn't be inlined, and it doesn't 
> matter a whit if some users outside of this file then also want the 
> non-inlined version.

AFAICS, it's a gcc bug.  We have
extern struct block_device *I_BDEV(struct inode *inode);
followed by
inline struct block_device *I_BDEV(struct inode *inode)
{
...
}

and presence of declaration with extern within the same translation unit
means that definition we have here is an external one, per 6.7.4.  It's
perfectly legitimate and gcc has no business complaining about inline
here; moreover, example in 6.7.4(7) is essentially the same thing...
--
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/