Re: [PATCH 3/6] locking/spinlocks: Mark spinlocks noinline when inline spinlocks are disabled

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017, Andi Kleen wrote:

> From: Andi Kleen 
> 
> 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 
> ---
>  kernel/locking/spinlock.c | 56 
> +++

How is that patch x86 specific? 

Cc'in the maintainers of that is not optional either.

Thanks,

tglx

Re: [PATCH 3/6] locking/spinlocks: Mark spinlocks noinline when inline spinlocks are disabled

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017, Andi Kleen wrote:

> From: Andi Kleen 
> 
> 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 
> ---
>  kernel/locking/spinlock.c | 56 
> +++

How is that patch x86 specific? 

Cc'in the maintainers of that is not optional either.

Thanks,

tglx