From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] acpi/battery.c: make 2 functions static Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 09:57:20 +0100 Message-ID: <20080303085720.GD15943@elte.hu> References: <20080301161902.GN25835@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <47C99FE1.8080206@gmail.com> <20080301183550.GC25835@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:46233 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753098AbYCCI5g (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 03:57:36 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080301183550.GC25835@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Alexey Starikovskiy , lenb@kernel.org, astarikovskiy@suse.de, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 09:26:41PM +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > > May I keep them inline? > > The problem with such manual inlines is that we force gcc to always > inline them - and history has shown that functions grow without the > "inline" being removed. what do you mean by "we force gcc to always inline them"? gcc is free to decide whether to inline or to not inline. (and CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING got removed from 2.6.25) Ingo