[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121221072056.GS4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 07:20:56 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] Ensure that kernel_init_freeable() is not inlined
into non __init code
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:25:44PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> Commit d6b2123802d "make sure that we always have a return path from
> kernel_execve()" reshuffled kernel_init()/init_post() to ensure that
> kernel_execve() has a caller to return to.
>
> It removed __init annotation for kernel_init() and introduced/calls a
> new routine kernel_init_freeable(). Latter however is inlined by any
> reasonable compiler (ARC gcc 4.4 in this case), causing slight code
> bloat.
Interesting... I assumed that explicitly set different section would be
enough, but I'd been wrong (or the original noinline would've been pointless,
now that I think of it). Consider it ACKed; I can pick it through signal.git,
and while it's not urgent I'd send it to Linus after -rc1, with Cc: stable.
Or you can send it to him yourself with my usual Acked-by - up to you.
--
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