On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:56:09 +0100 Peter Osterlund <petero2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > drivers/block/pktcdvd.c | 16 ++++++++-------- > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/block/pktcdvd.c b/drivers/block/pktcdvd.c > index 674cd66..f2510e7 100644 > --- a/drivers/block/pktcdvd.c > +++ b/drivers/block/pktcdvd.c > @@ -849,7 +849,7 @@ static int pkt_flush_cache(struct pktcdvd_device *pd) > /* > * speed is given as the normal factor, e.g. 4 for 4x > */ > -static int pkt_set_speed(struct pktcdvd_device *pd, unsigned write_speed, unsigned read_speed) > +static noinline int pkt_set_speed(struct pktcdvd_device *pd, unsigned write_speed, unsigned read_speed) > > ... yup, I'll grab that. I'll even write your changelog for you (grr). But first, let's do this: From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> People are adding `noinline' in various places to prevent excess stack consumption due to gcc inlining. But once this is done, it is quite unobvious why the `noinline' is present in the code. We can comment each and every site, or we can use noinline_for_stack. Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- include/linux/compiler.h | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff -puN include/linux/compiler.h~add-noinline_for_stack include/linux/compiler.h --- a/include/linux/compiler.h~add-noinline_for_stack +++ a/include/linux/compiler.h @@ -138,6 +138,12 @@ extern void __chk_io_ptr(const volatile #define noinline #endif +/* + * Rather then using noinline to prevent stack consumption, use + * noinline_for_stack instead. For documentaiton reasons. + */ +#define noinline_for_stack noinline + #ifndef __always_inline #define __always_inline inline #endif _ (Note that these changes don't let DM off the hook!) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
