[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121126210038.GA3987@animalcreek.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:00:38 -0700
From: "Mark A. Greer" <mgreer@...malcreek.com>
To: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...com>
Cc: Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@...com>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't mark shared helper functions as inline
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:57:42AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Russ Dill (2012-11-26 11:20:09)
> > The helper functions that access the opaque struct clk should
> > not be marked inline since they are contained in clk.c, but expected
> > to be used by other compilation units. This causes compile errors
> > under gcc-4.7
> >
> > In file included from arch/arm/mach-omap2/clockdomain.c:25:0:
> > arch/arm/mach-omap2/clockdomain.c: In function ‘clkdm_clk_disable’:
> > include/linux/clk-provider.h:338:12: error: inlining failed in call to always_inline ‘__clk_get_enable_count’: function body not available
> > arch/arm/mach-omap2/clockdomain.c:1001:28: error: called from here
> > make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-omap2/clockdomain.o] Error 1
> > make: *** [arch/arm/mach-omap2] Error 2
> >
>
Hi Mike.
> Regardless, I'm still considering this patch. I've heard many times
> that we should trust the compiler to optimize for us and some folks look
> down on inlining in general. If anyone has an opinion on removing
> inlines from the common clk core then please do speak up.
You should take a look at "Chapter 15: The inline disease" in
Documentation/CodingStyle.
Mark
--
--
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