Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > If gcc did that then it would need to generate static instances of > inlined functions within individual compilation units. It would be a > disaster for the kernel. For a start, functions which are "inlined" in kernel > modules wouldn't be able to access their static storage and modprobing > them would fail. Do you expect a static inline function that lives in a header file and that has a static variable in it to share that static variable over all instances of that function in a program? Or do you expect the static variable to be limited at the file level? Or just at the invocation level? > Does mn10300's get_cycles() really count backwards? Yes, because the value is generated by a pair of cascaded 16-bit hardware down-counters. > The first two callsites I looked at (crypto/tcrypt.c and fs/ext4/mballoc.c) > assume that it is an upcounter. Hmmm... I didn't occur to me that get_cycles() was available for use outside of arch code. Possibly it wasn't so used when I first came up with the code. I should probably make it count the other way. David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
