Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] compiler-gcc.h: add gnu_inline to all inline declarations

From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
To: joe@perches.com
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
	Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@virtuozzo.com>,
	akataria@vmware.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com,
	brijesh.singh@amd.com, Cao jin <caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	hpa@zytor.com, "J. Kiszka" <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
	jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com, jgross@suse.com,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
	kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, mingo@redhat.com,
	mjg59@google.com, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
	Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	thomas.lendacky@amd.com, Thiebaud Weksteen <tweek@google.com>,
	linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	x86@kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Alistair Strachan <astrachan@google.com>,
	Manoj Gupta <manojgupta@google.com>,
	Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@google.com>,
	sedat.dilek@gmail.com, tstellar@redhat.com,
	Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>,
	Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
	Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
	Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org>,
	geert@linux-m68k.org, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	mawilcox@microsoft.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] compiler-gcc.h: add gnu_inline to all inline declarations
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 11:51:59 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdkDyVC02oXsTX9YYAFLw5Q+aFNWsAp911h6VdjMCYFwJQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <28c288fd3e87b6c839697519043cf642518e0262.camel@perches.com>

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:31 AM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 10:26 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > I get the feeling that the use of __inline__ or __inline (vs inline)
> > in the kernel may be wrong and their use should be eradicated in the
> > follow up patch set, but it would be cool if others have additional
> > insight.
>
> __inline is easy and useful to remove as it's used in
> just a few files.
>
> But __inline__ is used in a lot of files and locations:
>
> $ git grep -w --name-only __inline__ | wc -l
> 154
> $ git grep -w __inline__ | wc -l
> 503
>
> Some of these files are used in asm includes as
> well where __inline__ may be preferred by gcc
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Alternate-Keywords.html#Alternate-Keywords
>
> so perhaps asm exclusions would be necessary.

Oops, just saw this email after sending v3: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/6/7/1055

Guess I should re-add __inline__ and __inline then to 1/3?
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/6/7/1060

ie:

+#define __inline__ __inline__ inline
instead of
+#define __inline__ inline

?

On the other hand, I was able to assemble with gcc+binutils and v3 as it stands.

Reading the link you sent, it seems more about compiling with
-pedantic or non-gnu C standards being used (I'd call that unlikely
for the kernel). So it still seems incorrect to me the use of
__inline__ (but I do appreciate the link!) at least in the kernel.