LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Robert P. J. Day" <>
To: Adrian Bunk <>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <>,
	Linux kernel mailing list <>
Subject: Re: can someone explain "inline" once and for all?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:44:59 -0500 (EST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701190939470.25798@CPE00045a9c397f-CM001225dbafb6> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 03:01:44PM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > On 1/19/07, Robert P. J. Day <> wrote:
> > >is there a simple explanation for how to *properly* define inline
> > >routines in the kernel?  and maybe this can be added to the
> > >CodingStyle guide (he mused, wistfully).
> >
> > AFAIK __always_inline is the only reliable way to force inlining where
> > it matters for correctness (for example, when playing tricks with
> > __builtin_return_address like we do in the slab).
> >
> > Anything else is just a hint to the compiler that might be ignored if
> > the optimizer thinks it knows better.
> With the current implementation in the kernel (and considering that
> CONFIG_FORCED_INLINING was implemented in a way that it never had
> any effect), __always_inline and inline are currently equivalent.

right, and that last part explains that snippet i previously posted
from include/asm-alpha/compiler.h

#ifdef __KERNEL__
/* Some idiots over in <linux/compiler.h> thought inline should imply
   always_inline.  This breaks stuff.  We'll include this file whenever
   we run into such problems.  */

  which is a result of this from include/linux/compiler.h:


#define inline          inline          __attribute__((always_inline))
#define __inline__      __inline__      __attribute__((always_inline))
#define __inline        __inline        __attribute__((always_inline))

which certainly seems to suggest that *ever* explicitly stating
"always inline" is redundant, no?  maybe i'm missing something
critical here but this just seems wrong.

> __always_inline is mostly an annotation that really bad things might
> happen if the code doesn't get inlined.

and that makes sense.  it has no effect, it's more for just
commenting.  but it's still kind of misleading.


  reply	other threads:[~2007-01-19 14:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-01-19 11:56 Robert P. J. Day
2007-01-19 13:01 ` Pekka Enberg
2007-01-19 13:19   ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-01-19 14:13   ` Adrian Bunk
2007-01-19 14:44     ` Robert P. J. Day [this message]
2007-01-19 14:53     ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-01-19 13:37 ` Andreas Schwab
2007-01-19 13:48   ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-01-19 13:58     ` Andreas Schwab
2007-01-19 14:00       ` Robert P. J. Day
2007-01-19 17:15 ` Alexandre Oliva
2007-01-19 17:36   ` Adrian Bunk

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.64.0701190939470.25798@CPE00045a9c397f-CM001225dbafb6 \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: can someone explain "inline" once and for all?' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).