From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758159AbYDNIx3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:53:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752796AbYDNIxW (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:53:22 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:42189 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752555AbYDNIxW (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:53:22 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:53:07 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: Jacek Luczak , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: pgtable_32.h - prototype and section mismatch fixes Message-ID: <20080414085307.GG19865@elte.hu> References: <48022990.3060104@gmail.com> <20080414072645.GG16163@elte.hu> <20080414084127.GA11372@uranus.ravnborg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080414084127.GA11372@uranus.ravnborg.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0007] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Sam Ravnborg 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) Ingo