[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1335444509.13683.13.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:48:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, josh@...htriplett.org,
niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
patches@...aro.org, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 5/6] rcu: Make __kfree_rcu() less
dependent on compiler choices
On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 09:42 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Currently, __kfree_rcu() is implemented as an inline function, and
> contains a BUILD_BUG_ON() that malfunctions if __kfree_rcu() is compiled
> as an out-of-line function. Unfortunately, there are compiler settings
> (e.g., -O0) that can result in __kfree_rcu() being compiled out of line,
> resulting in annoying build breakage. This commit therefore converts
> both __kfree_rcu() and __is_kfree_rcu_offset() from inline functions to
> macros to prevent such misbehavior on the part of the compiler.
The kernel very explicitly doesn't support being compiled with -O0, so
this is a non-issue, I think you can make it work if you add
-finline-functions.
I'd drop this, either make the entire kernel compile or don't bother.
--
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