Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753910AbYJUKab (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:30:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752722AbYJUKaX (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:30:23 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:58111 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752269AbYJUKaW (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:30:22 -0400 To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , "David S. Miller" , Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , David Howells Subject: Re: [announce] new tree: "fix all build warnings, on all configs" II From: Andi Kleen References: <20081017171139.GA1792@elte.hu> <87r66ejqla.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:30:22 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87r66ejqla.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> (Andi Kleen's message of "Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:43:29 +0200") Message-ID: <87zlkydyv5.fsf_-_@basil.nowhere.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1540 Lines: 48 Andi Kleen writes: >> if (battery->have_sysfs_alarm) >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c b/drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c >> index d13194a..2276d75 100644 >> --- a/drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/sleep/main.c >> @@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ void __init acpi_old_suspend_ordering(void) >> /** >> * acpi_pm_disable_gpes - Disable the GPEs. >> */ >> -static int acpi_pm_disable_gpes(void) >> +static inline int acpi_pm_disable_gpes(void) > > Just to satisfy my curiosity, what compiler warning does marking functions inline > fix? No reply. General note: ignoring review comments does not make the problems go away. The reason I asked is that the patch is very likely wrong. AFAIK the only warning that can be fixed by this inline would be a linker section mismatch (that is why I asked). But for linker section mismatch this is not the correct change: - inline is only advisory and gcc is free to disregard it. So you could get the warning back any time. - If you really want inlining for correctness you need to use __always_inline - Or if it's really to satisfy a linker section mismatch it's typically better to just declare all inlined functions in the correct section, e.g. __init Please fix this properly. Thanks, -Andi -- ak@linux.intel.com -- 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/