On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:48:18 +0000 "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Quoting Andrew Morton ([email protected]): > > On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:03:25 +0000 > > "Serge E. Hallyn" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > /* > > > + * called with RCU read lock from check_kill_permission() > > > + */ > > > +static inline int kill_ok_by_cred(struct task_struct *t) > > > +{ > > > + const struct cred *cred = current_cred(); > > > + const struct cred *tcred = __task_cred(t); > > > + > > > + if (cred->user->user_ns == tcred->user->user_ns && > > > + (cred->euid == tcred->suid || > > > + cred->euid == tcred->uid || > > > + cred->uid == tcred->suid || > > > + cred->uid == tcred->uid)) > > > + return 1; > > > + > > > + if (ns_capable(tcred->user->user_ns, CAP_KILL)) > > > + return 1; > > > + > > > + return 0; > > > +} > > > > The compiler will inline this for us. > > Is that simply true with everything (worth inlining) nowadays, or is > there a particular implicit hint to the compiler that'll make that > happen? We've basically stopped inlining things nowadays. gcc inlines aggressively and sometimes we have to use noinline to stop it. Also, modern gcc's like to ignore the inline directive anwyay, so we have to resort to __always_inline when we disagree. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
