On 6/18/07, Satyam Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,On 6/18/07, Yasunori Goto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 02:49:24PM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote: > > > > -static inline unsigned long zone_absent_pages_in_node(int nid, > > > > +static inline unsigned long __meminit zone_absent_pages_in_node(int nid, > > > > unsigned long zone_type, > > > > unsigned long *zholes_size) > > > > { > > > > > > I thought __meminit is not effective for these static functions, > > > because they are inlined function. So, it depends on caller's > > > defenition. Is it wrong? > > > > > Ah, that's possible, I hadn't considered that. It seems to be a bit more > > obvious what the intention is if it's annotated, especially as this is > > the convention that's used by the rest of mm/page_alloc.c. A bit more > > consistent, if nothing more. > > I'm not sure which is intended. I found some functions define both > __init and inline in kernel tree. And probably, some functions don't > do it. So, it seems there is no convention. > > I'm Okay if you prefer both defined. :-) Marking inline functions as __init (or __meminit etc) is quite insane, IMHO. Note that all callers of the said inline function will also have to be __init anyway (else modpost will barf)
Actually, modpost will _not_ complain precisely _because_ kernel uses always_inline so a separate body for the function will never be emitted at all. But all callers of said inline function will *still* need to be in __init anyway, else if the said inline function itself calls some __init function (which is likely) and the caller of the said inline function is not __init *then* modpost will complain.
so the said function will have all callsites in .init.text anyway, and hence would be inlined in the same section as the caller (i.e. .init.text). [Note that kernel uses always_inline.] The annotation may still be a readability aid (which is subjective so one can't really comment upon), but asking gcc to put into a separate specified section, a function whose body would not be emitted by gcc separately at all, doesn't really make much sense syntactically _or_ semantically -- gcc might not warn, of course, perhaps it's one of those little things it takes care of by itself silently without complaining (like taking pointers to inline functions).
All this is valid, still. Perhaps sparse warns / can be made to warn about such cases (which may not be bugs, but weird C, at least)? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
