Re: [PATCH] x86: pgtable_32.h - prototype and section mismatch fixes

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:53:07AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > hm, that's an interesting case: we need those annotations probably 
> > > because gcc decided to not inline those functions. (this is possible 
> > > via the new CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y option) Sam, what's your take 
> > > on that?
> > 
> > gcc uses different heuristics for inlining between the different 
> > versions. Therefore to achieve somehow predictable results I added 
> > -fno-inline-functions-called-once when CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH 
> > is enabled.
> > 
> > So in the above case for any normal kernel build we would see that gcc 
> > inlined the above and everything is fine. But for the 
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMTCH cases we do not inline and thus we see 
> > that we have a section mismatch.
> 
> ah, ok. So i guess this will result in a few isolated cases of __init 
> annotations added to inline functions - Jacek fixed one such case - but 
> it should not result in the general spreading of __init annotations to 
> inline functions, correct? (which i was worried about)
I do not think so. The need for small isolated inline functions
in the init paths are minimal and last I did a section mismatch free
sweep on the kernel it was only few if any inline functions(*) I had
to annotate.

(*) Considering only the minimal amount of function that ought
to be annotated inlined.

	Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/