Re: Introduce down_killable()

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:05:06 GMT
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> --- a/kernel/semaphore.c
> +++ b/kernel/semaphore.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
>  
>  static noinline void __down(struct semaphore *sem);
>  static noinline int __down_interruptible(struct semaphore *sem);
> +static noinline int __down_killable(struct semaphore *sem);
>  static noinline void __up(struct semaphore *sem);

What is the reason for all the noinlines in this file?

Something to do with getting proper wchan output?  I guess it doesn't hurt
from a documentation POV, but did you find that it was actually necessary?

IOW: is gcc now capable of secretly inlining functions which are defined
further ahead in the compilation unit?


(did you actually "test" the wchan stuff, btw?)
--
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/