Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 3 Mar 2008 10:17:14 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [2.6 patch] acpi/battery.c: make 2 functions static |
| |
* Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:57:20AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> 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
| |