Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754226AbYL2Jez (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Dec 2008 04:34:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753196AbYL2Jer (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Dec 2008 04:34:47 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:46378 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752991AbYL2Jeq (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Dec 2008 04:34:46 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:34:25 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Yinghai Lu Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Linus Torvalds , KOSAKI Motohiro , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Thomas Gleixner , Jesse Barnes , Kamalesh Babulal Subject: Re: [git pull] sparseirq / irq updates for v2.6.29 Message-ID: <20081229093425.GB27293@elte.hu> References: <20081225160741.GA14486@elte.hu> <20081227133240.GA8716@elte.hu> <2f11576a0812270927taef068fobbad997dc5e5aacf@mail.gmail.com> <20081227173839.GA9793@elte.hu> <20081228232729.GA2158@elte.hu> <4958120F.4060804@zytor.com> <86802c440812281606o6e8fbde1ub2e5055f83fea47@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86802c440812281606o6e8fbde1ub2e5055f83fea47@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 1367 Lines: 35 * Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 3:55 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> > >> ok, agreed. I was hoping for some more generic workaround but nothing > >> seemed to keep gcc from inlining such functions. > >> > > > > Other than blacklisting those gcc versions. It's pretty easy to > > understand how a bug like that could creep in, since one of the main > > improvements of the early gcc4 series was better inlining as an > > optimization. > > 1. one time path add one dummy printk dummy printks are not a good idea at all. Often the weak versions are the ones that get used and it would be very annoying if there was a per boot (or even per syscall!) 'dummy printk'. > 2. multi path, could move it to another file. > could add one like kernel/weak.c to collect those ... that pretty much removes the advantages of __weak symbols: to provide default implementations for various functionality, without having to do #ifdefs. The default implementation will often want to be near the usage site - so these bugs will reoccur again and again. 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/