[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yjno9GS9Q0JEnZyc@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:19:16 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
mhiramat@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, hjl.tools@...il.com,
rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, rppt@...nel.org,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org, Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com
Subject: Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the tip tree
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 11:04:38AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:35:54 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > I suggested inhibiting tail-call to notrace, you said no. You now seem to
> > agree that solves it.
>
> I said inhibiting tail-calls was a solution, but only inhibiting it to
> notrace would probably have a significant performance impact.
>
> I thought you were talking about adding notrace to tail calls, not the
> other way around. Maybe that is our confusion in this conversation.
Yeah, I meant inhibiting the compiler from doing tail-calls.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists