Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Satyam Sharma
Subject:
Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 5:36 pm

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote:


As you mentioned later, "single .c file with all the other files (headers
or other .c files) that it pulls in via #include" is actually "translation
unit", both in the C standard as well as gcc docs. "Compilation unit"
doesn't seem to be nearly as standard a term, though in most places it
is indeed meant to be same as "translation unit", but with the new gcc
inter-module-analysis stuff that you referred to above, I suspect one may
reasonably want to call a "compilation unit" as all that the compiler sees
at a given instant.

BTW I did some auditing (only inside include/asm-{i386,x86_64}/ and
arch/{i386,x86_64}/) and found a couple more callsites that don't use
cpu_relax():

arch/i386/kernel/crash.c:101
arch/x86_64/kernel/crash.c:97

that are:

	while ((atomic_read(&waiting_for_crash_ipi) > 0) && msecs) {
		mdelay(1);
		msecs--;
	}

where mdelay() becomes __const_udelay() which happens to be in another
translation unit (arch/i386/lib/delay.c) and hence saves this callsite
from being a bug :-)

Curiously, __const_udelay() is still marked as "inline" where it is
implemented in lib/delay.c which is weird, considering it won't ever
be inlined, would it? With the kernel presently being compiled one
translation unit at a time, I don't see how the implementation would
be visible to any callsite out there to be able to inline it.


Satyam
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Christoph Lameter, (Tue Aug 14, 4:14 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Segher Boessenkool, (Wed Aug 15, 11:31 am)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Wed Aug 15, 11:57 am)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Segher Boessenkool, (Wed Aug 15, 1:47 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Segher Boessenkool, (Wed Aug 15, 1:52 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Segher Boessenkool, (Wed Aug 15, 2:05 pm)
[No subject], Satyam Sharma, (Wed Aug 15, 5:36 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Segher Boessenkool, (Wed Aug 15, 6:23 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Segher Boessenkool, (Wed Aug 15, 6:26 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Segher Boessenkool, (Wed Aug 15, 6:30 pm)
Re: , Segher Boessenkool, (Wed Aug 15, 6:38 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Segher Boessenkool, (Thu Aug 16, 12:32 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Segher Boessenkool, (Thu Aug 16, 12:33 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Paul E. McKenney, (Thu Aug 16, 10:18 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Geert Uytterhoeven, (Thu Aug 16, 11:42 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Segher Boessenkool, (Fri Aug 17, 10:37 am)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Segher Boessenkool, (Fri Aug 17, 3:29 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Segher Boessenkool, (Fri Aug 17, 3:49 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Segher Boessenkool, (Fri Aug 17, 4:55 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Christoph Lameter, (Fri Aug 17, 6:24 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Segher Boessenkool, (Mon Aug 20, 3:04 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Segher Boessenkool, (Mon Aug 20, 4:02 pm)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Segher Boessenkool, (Tue Aug 21, 7:39 am)
Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently ac ..., Segher Boessenkool, (Tue Aug 21, 7:48 am)
Re: [PATCH] i386: Fix a couple busy loops in mach_wakecpu. ..., Christoph Lameter, (Fri Aug 24, 10:06 am)