[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8509.1226077800@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:10:00 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Nicolas Pitre <nico@....org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 08/18] cnt32_to_63 should use smp_rmb()
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> I'd expect it to behave in the same way as it would if the function was
> implemented out-of-line.
>
> But it occurs to me that the modrobe-doesnt-work thing would happen if
> the function _is_ inlined anyway, so we won't be doing that.
>
> Whatever. Killing this many puppies because gcc may do something so
> bizarrely wrong isn't justifiable.
With gcc, you get one instance of the static variable from inside a static
(inline or outofline) function per .o file that invokes it, and these do not
merge even though they're common symbols. I asked around and the opinion
seems to be that this is correct C. I suppose it's the equivalent of cutting
and pasting a function between several files - why should the compiler assume
it's the same function in each?
David
--
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