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

[Jacek Luczak]

Ingo Molnar pisze:
> * 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)
> 

Yep, I was confused about that patch, thus I didn't sent it previously.

Hmm...I forgot that all my kernels where compiled with
CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y. There's no mismatch warning printed while
OPTIMIZE_INLINING is not set. Also I've made a fast look into objects and looks
like those two functions are really inlined. I will also take a look on those
functions with CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y && ONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH=n.

-Jacek
--
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/