On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:01:44 -0700 Behan Webster <beh...@converseincode.com> wrote:
> On 02/20/14 18:22, beh...@converseincode.com wrote: > > From: Behan Webster <beh...@converseincode.com> > > > > With compilers which follow the C99 standard (like modern versions of gcc > > and > > clang), "extern inline" does the wrong thing (emits code for an externally > > linkable version of the inline function). In this case using static inline > > and removing the NULL version of return_address in return_address.c does > > the right thing. > Any input? Is it good as it is? I'm fine with it. But you need approval from the arm folks. I know there was some issues with the return_address() code in the past. But from the ftrace perspective: Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
