From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rostedt@goodmis.org (Steven Rostedt) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:31:07 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] arm: LLVMLinux: use static inline in ARM ftrace.h In-Reply-To: <531EB4D8.6030207@converseincode.com> References: <1392949370-26422-1-git-send-email-behanw@converseincode.com> <531EB4D8.6030207@converseincode.com> Message-ID: <20140311083107.6aa2bba4@gandalf.local.home> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:01:44 -0700 Behan Webster wrote: > On 02/20/14 18:22, behanw at converseincode.com wrote: > > From: Behan Webster > > > > With compilers which follow the C99 standard (like modern versions of gcc and > > clang), "extern inline" does the wrong thing (emits code for an externally > > linkable version of the inline function). In this case using static inline > > and removing the NULL version of return_address in return_address.c does > > the right thing. > Any input? Is it good as it is? I'm fine with it. But you need approval from the arm folks. I know there was some issues with the return_address() code in the past. But from the ftrace perspective: Acked-by: Steven Rostedt -- Steve