Linus Torvalds wrote:
quoted text >
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> interesting observation: if I turn the macros into inlines... the difference
>> goes away.
>>
>> I'm half tempted to just do it as inline period ... any objections ?
>
> Yes, I object. I want to understand why it would matter. If this is a
> compiler bug, it's a really rather bad one. And if it's just some stupid
> bug in our pmd_bad() macro, I still want to know what the problem was.
>
> Can you compile both ways and look at what changed at the offending site
> (which is apparently "follow_page()")?
>
> And do you have some odd compiler version?
it's the F9 gcc, so yeah it's really new.
I'm staring at the disassembly and it's quite different but follow_page() is rather large;
trying to make a smaller testcase now
--
unsubscribe notice To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Messages in current thread:
Re: bisected boot regression post 2.6.25-rc3.. please revert , Arjan van de Ven , (Mon Mar 3, 6:00 pm)