On Thu, 21 Dec 2017, Andi Kleen wrote: > From: Andi Kleen <a...@linux.intel.com> > > Otherwise LTO will inline them anyways and cause a large > kernel text increase. > > Since the explicit intention here is to not inline them marking > them noinline is good documentation even for the non LTO case. > > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <a...@linux.intel.com> > --- > kernel/locking/spinlock.c | 56 > +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
How is that patch x86 specific? Cc'in the maintainers of that is not optional either. Thanks, tglx