linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] locking/spinlocks: Mark spinlocks noinline when inline spinlocks are disabled

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1801141911570.2371@nanos>
Date:   Sun, 14 Jan 2018 19:13:33 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] locking/spinlocks: Mark spinlocks noinline when
 inline spinlocks are disabled

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017, Andi Kleen wrote:

> From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> Otherwise LTO will inline them anyways and cause a large
> kernel text increase.
> 
> Since the explicit intention here is to not inline them marking
> them noinline is good documentation even for the non LTO case.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  kernel/locking/spinlock.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------

How is that patch x86 specific? 

Cc'in the maintainers of that is not optional either.

Thanks,

	tglx