Re: [2.6 patch] kernel/sched*: optimize inlining

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>]

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 08:57:59AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>...
> > Provocation is the only way of communication that works on this list.
> 
> So this was pure time waste. Thanks!
> Please do not waste my time answering this.

I'm saying since 2005 that breaking the semantics of "inline" in the 
kernel can cause problems - and noone cared.

Now I did choose an example that highlights the possible problem of 
changing the semantics of "inline" [1], defended it, and let other 
people (like you) argue against it.

This thread is AFAIR the only time someone other than me said
"Stop! That inline here might be required!".

What I'll do with non-provoking patches will be to remove the > 95%
inline's that are not required and hope people like you now have a
rough understanding that this plus removing the "optimized inlining"
stuff is the safe way to go.

> 	Sam

cu
Adrian

[1] in the few places that really need it a hint is not sufficient;
    if you think it's required somewhere you have to audit the code
    and use always_inline _before_ the "optimized inlining" gets offered

-- 

       "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