On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 13:50 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Harvey Harrison wrote: > > > > __needs_inline? That would imply that it's for correctness reasons. > > .. but the point is, we have _thousands_ of inlines, and do you know which > is which? We've historically forced them to be inlined, and every time > somebody does that "OPTIMIZE_INLINE=y", something simply _breaks_. >
My suggestion was just an alternative to __force_inline as a naming...I agree that inline should mean __always_inline.....always. > So instead of just continually hitting our head against this wall because > some people seem to be convinced that gcc can do a good job, just do it > the other way around. Make the new one be "inline_hint" (no underscores > needed, btw), and there is ansolutely ZERO confusion about what it means. agreed. > At that point, everybody knows why it's there, and it's clearly not a > correctness issue or anything else. > > Of course, at that point you might as well argue that the thing should not > exist at all, and that such a flag should just be removed entirely. Which > I certainly agree with - I think the only flag we need is "inline", and I > think it should mean what it damn well says. Also agreed, but there needs to start being some education about _not_ using inline so much in the kernel. Harvey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
