Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758090AbYCCJRk (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 04:17:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753756AbYCCJRb (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 04:17:31 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:59348 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752285AbYCCJRa (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 04:17:30 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:17:14 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Alexey Starikovskiy , lenb@kernel.org, astarikovskiy@suse.de, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] acpi/battery.c: make 2 functions static Message-ID: <20080303091714.GA18250@elte.hu> References: <20080301161902.GN25835@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <47C99FE1.8080206@gmail.com> <20080301183550.GC25835@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080303085720.GD15943@elte.hu> <20080303091314.GC4457@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080303091314.GC4457@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1325 Lines: 40 * Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:57:20AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 09:26:41PM +0300, Alexey Starikovskiy wrote: > > > > May I keep them inline? > > > > > > The problem with such manual inlines is that we force gcc to always > > > inline them - and history has shown that functions grow without the > > > "inline" being removed. > > > > what do you mean by "we force gcc to always inline them"? > > #define inline inline __attribute__((always_inline)) > > > gcc is free to decide whether to inline or to not inline. > > Not with __attribute__((always_inline)). but that wasnt used in the code you patched: -inline int acpi_battery_present(struct acpi_battery *battery) +static int acpi_battery_present(struct acpi_battery *battery) > > (and CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING got removed from 2.6.25) > > CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING never had any effect. my experience was that it had effects. Why do you say it 'never had any effect'? Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/