* Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:57:20AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
