From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 08/18] cnt32_to_63 should use smp_rmb()
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:29:26 -0800
Message-ID: <20081107082926.ee3e1efe.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20081107075003.fa93ccf4.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<20081107003816.9b0f947a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<20081107052336.652868737@polymtl.ca>
	<20081107053349.861709786@polymtl.ca>
	<20081106220530.5b0e3a96.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<alpine.LFD.2.00.0811070256450.13034@xanadu.home>
	<25363.1226056819@redhat.com>
	<alpine.LFD.2.00.0811070952150.13034@xanadu.home>
	<8189.1226074915@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:49529 "EHLO
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750776AbYKGQau (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:30:50 -0500
In-Reply-To: <8189.1226074915@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-arch.vger.kernel.org>
To: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:21:55 +0000 David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> wrote:

> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > If gcc did that then it would need to generate static instances of
> > inlined functions within individual compilation units.  It would be a
> > disaster for the kernel.  For a start, functions which are "inlined" in kernel
> > modules wouldn't be able to access their static storage and modprobing
> > them would fail.
> 
> Do you expect a static inline function that lives in a header file and that
> has a static variable in it to share that static variable over all instances
> of that function in a program?  Or do you expect the static variable to be
> limited at the file level?  Or just at the invocation level?

I'd expect it to behave in the same way as it would if the function was
implemented out-of-line.

But it occurs to me that the modrobe-doesnt-work thing would happen if
the function _is_ inlined anyway, so we won't be doing that.

Whatever.  Killing this many puppies because gcc may do something so
bizarrely wrong isn't justifiable.