From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1757013AbYD2JET@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757013AbYD2JET (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:04:19 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754274AbYD2JEH
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:04:07 -0400
Received: from smtp5.pp.htv.fi ([213.243.153.39]:56937 "EHLO smtp5.pp.htv.fi"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1753477AbYD2JEG (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 05:04:06 -0400
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:03:27 +0300
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
To: Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
       Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@mailshack.com>, jdike@addtoit.com
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] fs/block_dev.c:I_BDEV() mustn't be inline
Message-ID: <20080429090327.GA19269@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi>
References: <20080424215739.GA32378@elte.hu> <alpine.LFD.1.10.0804241510420.2779@woody.linux-foundation.org> <20080426151516.GA27894@elte.hu> <alpine.LFD.1.10.0804260955300.2813@woody.linux-foundation.org> <20080426172222.GD17345@elte.hu> <20080428153831.GC2813@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <alpine.LFD.1.10.0804281736230.3119@woody.linux-foundation.org> <20080429080631.GB28059@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080429081705.GA3552@uranus.ravnborg.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080429081705.GA3552@uranus.ravnborg.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:17:05AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:06:31AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 05:41:11PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >...
> > > > -inline struct block_device *I_BDEV(struct inode *inode)
> > > > +struct block_device *I_BDEV(struct inode *inode)
> > > >  {
> > > >  	return &BDEV_I(inode)->bdev;
> > > >  }
> > > 
> > > There is NO WAY IN HELL this function shouldn't be inlined,
> > >...
> > 
> > Then CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING already broke it in your tree.
> 
> Can you please help me here.
> Previously we said: gcc shall inline
> Now we say: hi gcc - it is a good idea to inline this

Previosly we said:
"inline" means "must inline"

With CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING=y we say:
"inline" means "try a bit harder to inline"

> But even without any inline annotation we would expect gcc
> to inline it based on normal heuristics simply due to the
> small size/footprint of the function.

gcc anyway has to emit one global copy of this function.

And with the common CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE=y we tell gcc to focus 
on getting the smallest possible code.

> So I cannot see how the CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING have any
> effect here.
> It all smells like a gcc bug to me.

The compile error is a gcc bug.

> 	Sam

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