On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 07:44:05PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 04:35:19AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > Is there a reason for this function in particular to be __always_inline? > > > fsverity_get_info() is just inline. > > > > Without the __always_inline some gcc versions on sparc fail to inline it, > > and cause a link failure due to a reference to fsverity_readahead in > > f2fs_mpage_readpages for non-verity builds. (reported by the buildbot) > > The relevant code is: > > vi = f2fs_need_verity(inode, folio->index); > if (vi) > fsverity_readahead(vi, folio, nr_pages); > > Where: > > f2fs_need_verity() > => fsverity_get_info() > => fsverity_active() > > If fsverity_active() needs __always_inline, why don't the other two > functions in the call chain need it?
I wish I knew. compiler inlining decisions are a big of black magic. If you prefer I can use __always_inline for the entire chain. _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
