Re: [2.6 patch] acpi/battery.c: make 2 functions static

Adrian Bunk
2008-03-03T11:36:25Z

On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:39:33AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote:
>
> > >From compiler-gcc.h:
> > >
> > > #define inline inline __attribute__((always_inline))
> >
> > So unless I am missing something obvious then each time we say inline
> > to a function we require gcc to inline the function.
> >
> > It is my impression that today we only say inline if really needed and
> > otherwise let gcc decide. So in almost all cases inlise should just be
> > nuked?
>
> no, what we should nuke is this always_inline definition. That was
> always the intention of FORCED_INLINE, and the removal of FORCED_INLINE
> was to _remove the forcing_, not to make it unconditional.

It was always unconditional, and neither adding, toggling nor removing
of CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING changed this invariant.

And what we should do is to attack the excessive wrong usage of inlines
in .c files, not messing with a global #define in a way that the results
on 24 architectures with 7 different releases of gcc would be unpredictable.

> so Adrian, if you knew about this bug all along, you might as well have
> reported it :-/

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/19/36
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/9/363

are the result of a quick Google search of me stating this previously on
linux-kernel. It might have been more often, but I'm too lame too
search further.

> Ingo

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed