From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751262AbeECNKY (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2018 09:10:24 -0400 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:58380 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751141AbeECNKW (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2018 09:10:22 -0400 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,358,1520924400"; d="scan'208";a="37164952" Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 21:00:13 +0800 From: "Du, Changbin" To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: changbin.du@intel.com, Masahiro Yamada , Michal Marek , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Steven Rostedt , Randy Dunlap , the arch/x86 maintainers , Liam Girdwood , Mark Brown , Linux Kbuild mailing list , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arch Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] kernel hacking: new config NO_AUTO_INLINE to disable compiler auto-inline optimizations Message-ID: <20180503130013.lcsem2xubk5jqmcg@intel.com> References: <1525268700-10631-1-git-send-email-changbin.du@intel.com> <1525268700-10631-4-git-send-email-changbin.du@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180323-6-5ca392 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 04:27:47PM -0400, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:44 AM, wrote: > > From: Changbin Du > > > > This patch add a new kernel hacking option NO_AUTO_INLINE. Selecting > > this option will prevent the compiler from optimizing the kernel by > > auto-inlining functions not marked with the inline keyword. > > > > With this option, only functions explicitly marked with "inline" will > > be inlined. This will allow the function tracer to trace more functions > > because it only traces functions that the compiler has not inlined. > > > > Signed-off-by: Changbin Du > > Cc: Steven Rostedt > > Should this be closer to CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING or > possibly mutually exclusive with it? > They are not related I think. CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING only has effect on functions which are explicitly marked as inline. > Arnd -- Thanks, Changbin Du