Re: [PATCH] compiler: allow all arches to enable CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING

From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Cc: linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	linux-mtd <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compiler: allow all arches to enable CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:32:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a1P812avY8reSSguYB0jPzgjs+30dSJpKZCnWwzyLoSVQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK7LNAQvvCVsQtd9ZYkechOSCg4HAeZFaNXCgaBbWWxBYXOgaQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 7:11 AM Masahiro Yamada
<yamada.masahiro@socionext.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:34 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:41 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > I've added your patch to my randconfig test setup and will let you
> > > know if I see anything noticeable. I'm currently testing clang-arm32,
> > > clang-arm64 and gcc-x86.
> >
> > This is the only additional bug that has come up so far:
> >
> > `.exit.text' referenced in section `.alt.smp.init' of
> > drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.o: defined in discarded section
> > `exit.text' of drivers/char/ipmi/ipmi_msghandler.o
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/atags.h b/arch/arm/kernel/atags.h
> > index 201100226301..84b12e33104d 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/atags.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/atags.h
> > @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ void convert_to_tag_list(struct tag *tags);
> >  const struct machine_desc *setup_machine_tags(phys_addr_t __atags_pointer,
> >         unsigned int machine_nr);
> >  #else
> > -static inline const struct machine_desc *
> > +static __always_inline const struct machine_desc *
> >  setup_machine_tags(phys_addr_t __atags_pointer, unsigned int machine_nr)
> >  {
> >         early_print("no ATAGS support: can't continue\n");
> >
>
>
> I do not know why to reproduce it,
> but is "__init __noreturn" more sensible than
> "__always_inline" here?

It's in a header file, so it has to be 'inline'. We could make it
static inline __init __noreturn, but I don't see an advantage over
__always_inline there.

        Arnd