From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751959AbYDNI7Q (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:59:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756218AbYDNI66 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:58:58 -0400 Received: from pasmtpb.tele.dk ([80.160.77.98]:33796 "EHLO pasmtpB.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751296AbYDNI66 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 04:58:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:59:27 +0200 From: Sam Ravnborg To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Jacek Luczak , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: pgtable_32.h - prototype and section mismatch fixes Message-ID: <20080414085927.GC11372@uranus.ravnborg.org> References: <48022990.3060104@gmail.com> <20080414072645.GG16163@elte.hu> <20080414084127.GA11372@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20080414085307.GG19865@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080414085307.GG19865@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:53:07AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > hm, that's an interesting case: we need those annotations probably > > > because gcc decided to not inline those functions. (this is possible > > > via the new CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y option) Sam, what's your take > > > on that? > > > > gcc uses different heuristics for inlining between the different > > versions. Therefore to achieve somehow predictable results I added > > -fno-inline-functions-called-once when CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH > > is enabled. > > > > So in the above case for any normal kernel build we would see that gcc > > inlined the above and everything is fine. But for the > > CONFIG_DEBUG_SECTION_MISMTCH cases we do not inline and thus we see > > that we have a section mismatch. > > ah, ok. So i guess this will result in a few isolated cases of __init > annotations added to inline functions - Jacek fixed one such case - but > it should not result in the general spreading of __init annotations to > inline functions, correct? (which i was worried about) I do not think so. The need for small isolated inline functions in the init paths are minimal and last I did a section mismatch free sweep on the kernel it was only few if any inline functions(*) I had to annotate. (*) Considering only the minimal amount of function that ought to be annotated inlined. Sam