[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wj9Dbom1x7qDfrXgNbjdFa_84bAUMdGigs4sELQQW28wg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 10:29:21 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler: enable CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING forcibly
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:24 AM Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com> wrote:
>
> I just want to annotate __always_inline for the case
> "2. code that if not inlined is somehow not correct."
Oh, I support that entirely - if only for documentation.
But I do *not* support the dismissal of the architecture maintainers
concerns about "does it work?" and apparently known compiler bugs.
> Again, not saying "use a macro".
Other people did, though.
And there seemed to be little balancing of the pain vs the gain. The
gain really isn't that obvious. If the code shrinks by a couple of kB,
is that good or bad? Maybe it is smaller, but is it _better_?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists