Re: bisected boot regression post 2.6.25-rc3.. please revert

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> interesting observation: if I turn the macros into inlines... the difference
>> goes away.
>>
>> I'm half tempted to just do it as inline period ... any objections ?
> 
> Yes, I object. I want to understand why it would matter. If this is a 
> compiler bug, it's a really rather bad one. And if it's just some stupid 
> bug in our pmd_bad() macro, I still want to know what the problem was.
> 
> Can you compile both ways and look at what changed at the offending site 
> (which is apparently "follow_page()")?
> 
> And do you have some odd compiler version?

it's the F9 gcc, so yeah it's really new.

I'm staring at the disassembly and it's quite different but follow_page() is rather large;
trying to  make a smaller testcase now