On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 06:35:47PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 11/21/2014, 05:40 PM, Seth Jennings wrote: > >>> --- /dev/null > >>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/livepatch.h > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ > ... > >>> +#ifndef _ASM_X86_LIVEPATCH_H > >>> +#define _ASM_X86_LIVEPATCH_H > >>> + > >>> +#include <linux/module.h> > >>> + > >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_LIVE_PATCHING > >>> +extern int klp_write_module_reloc(struct module *mod, unsigned long type, > >>> + unsigned long loc, unsigned long value); > >>> + > >>> +#else > >>> +static int klp_write_module_reloc(struct module *mod, unsigned long type, > >> > >> static inline? > > > > I think the practice is to let the compiler handle inline determination > > unless you are sure that the compiler isn't inlining something you think > > it should. > > Although you are right, it is a correct C, gcc specs (6.39) suggests to > use 'static inline' on such functions. gcc then shall inline such functions. Fair enough. Queued up. Thanks, Seth > > And if you look around in the kernel, we use that combination almost > everywhere. > > thanks, > -- > js > suse labs > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
