> - Headers could probably go back to 'extern inline' again. At not small > expense - we just finished moving to 'static inline'. We'd need to > guarantee a library instantiation for every header include file - this > is an additional mechanism with additional introduction complexities > and an ongoing maintenance cost. I thought the "static inline" in headers should be more of a "always inline". As Andrew Morton keeps yelling at me to use static inline instead of macros ;-) I do not see the point in the functions in the headers needing to have their "inlines" removed. > > - 'static inline' functions in .c files that are not used cause no build > warnings - while if we change them to 'static', we get a 'defined but > not used' warning. Hundreds of new warnings in the allyesconfig builds. Perhaps that's a good thing to see what functions are unused in the source. > > I know that because i just have removed all variants of 'inline' from all > .c files of the kernel, it's a 3.5MB patch: > > 3263 files changed, 12409 insertions(+), 12409 deletions(-) > > x86 defconfig comparisons: > > text filename > 6875817 vmlinux.always-inline ( 0.000% ) > 6838290 vmlinux.always-inline+remove-c-inlines ( -0.548% ) > 6794474 vmlinux.optimize-inlining ( -1.197% ) > > So the kernel's size improved by half a percent. Should i submit it? Are there cases that are "must inline" in that patch? Also, what is the difference if you do vmlinux.optimize-remove-c-inlines? Is there a difference there? -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
