Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1553062828-27798-1-git-send-email-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
 <CAK8P3a3BG_mxYxxCx4S_+ZKAer_+5FpmkzLk0VrACZekuD=2GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a0GEYTbw5XCwzVeZe_-pGF=7e=1kXhH3U+fidnMZeP0CA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK7LNAQvvCVsQtd9ZYkechOSCg4HAeZFaNXCgaBbWWxBYXOgaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a1P812avY8reSSguYB0jPzgjs+30dSJpKZCnWwzyLoSVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK7LNARatcRQ2u0JhiZHx4qU+mzS=SUv-kj7F-7-Vx--RFX5tw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK7LNARatcRQ2u0JhiZHx4qU+mzS=SUv-kj7F-7-Vx--RFX5tw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Mon, 25 Mar 2019 11:25:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a1QQeK1cBN2O8=p+zceQ7tw-ovYtWq6sBeavDucDWA7Lg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler: allow all arches to enable CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING
To:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Cc:     linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        linux-mtd <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 8:55 AM Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 4:33 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 7:11 AM Masahiro Yamada
> > <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
> > > I do not know why to reproduce it,
> > > but is "__init __noreturn" more sensible than
> > > "__always_inline" here?
> >
> > It's in a header file, so it has to be 'inline'. We could make it
> > static inline __init __noreturn,
>
> Yes, I like 'static inline __init __noreturn'
>
> > but I don't see an advantage over
> > __always_inline there.
>
> __always_inline takes away the compiler's freedom.
>
> I'd like to leave it up to the compiler where possible.

Ok, fair enough.

      Arnd