Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758872AbYCCKjz (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 05:39:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753972AbYCCKjq (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 05:39:46 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:57265 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752473AbYCCKjp (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Mar 2008 05:39:45 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 11:39:33 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Sam Ravnborg Cc: Adrian Bunk , 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: <20080303103933.GC21190@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> <20080303091714.GA18250@elte.hu> <20080303093103.GA23651@uranus.ravnborg.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080303093103.GA23651@uranus.ravnborg.org> 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: 980 Lines: 27 * Sam Ravnborg wrote: > >From compiler-gcc.h: > > > > #define inline inline __attribute__((always_inline)) > > So unless I am missing something obvious then each time we say inline > to a function we require gcc to inline the function. > > It is my impression that today we only say inline if really needed and > otherwise let gcc decide. So in almost all cases inlise should just be > nuked? no, what we should nuke is this always_inline definition. That was always the intention of FORCED_INLINE, and the removal of FORCED_INLINE was to _remove the forcing_, not to make it unconditional. so Adrian, if you knew about this bug all along, you might as well have reported it :-/ 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/