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

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>]

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