[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EC40391.7080508@google.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:40:17 -0800
From: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Il Han <corone.il.han@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: add the inline keyword to the prototype.
On 11/16/2011 01:00 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 23:28 -0800, Paul Turner wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 10:16 AM, Il Han wrote:
>>> The prototype has to agree with the definition.
>>> Add the inline keyword to the prototype also
>>>
>>
>> Hmm... this would then cause the prototypes to disagree in the
>> !CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH case.
>
> I'm very sure I've compiled a lot of kernels yesterday with various
> permutations including FAIR_GROUP&& !CFS_BANDWIDTH and I'm also very
> sure I haven't actually seen any complaints like this.
>
> It this some new fangled GCC 'feature'? I'm currently still on 4.5 which
> admittedly is somewhat stale.
gcc (even 4.6) won't give warnings either way about the inline attribute on a
forward declaration not matching in either direction. I would imagine this was
found by code-inspection.
I was only pointing out with this we have:
#if CONFIG_CFS_BANDWIDTH
static __always_inline xxx() { stuff; } [1]
#else
static xxx() {} [2]
#endif
And that by only changing the pre-declaration to match [1] it now similarly
(silently) would not match [2] in the !CONFIG case.
- Paul
--
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