Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> -static inline int constant_test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
>> +static __asm_inline int
>> +constant_test_bit(int nr, const volatile unsigned long *addr)
>> {
>> return ((1UL << (nr % BITS_PER_LONG)) &
>> (((unsigned long *)addr)[nr / BITS_PER_LONG])) != 0;
>
> Thios makes absolutely no sense.
>
> It's called "__always_inline", not __asm_inline.
>
> Why add a new nonsensical annotations like that?
>
__asm_inline was my suggestion, to distinguish "inline this
unconditionally because gcc screws up in the presence of asm()" versus
"inline this unconditionally because the world ends if it isn't" -- to
tell the human reader, not gcc. I guess the above is a good indicator
that the __asm_inline might have been a bad name.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
