"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> Inlining ftrace_modify_code(), it increases a bit the
>> size of ftrace code but brings 5% improvment on ftrace
>> activation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@csgroup.eu>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
>> b/arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
>> index 41c45b9c7f39..98e82fa4980f 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
>> @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ ftrace_call_replace(unsigned long ip, unsigned long addr,
>> int link)
>> return op;
>> }
>>
>> -static int
>> +static inline int
>> ftrace_modify_code(unsigned long ip, ppc_inst_t old, ppc_inst_t new)
>> {
>> ppc_inst_t replaced;
>
> I thought gcc was free to inline functions without the need for
> 'inline'.
Yes it is.
> On the flip side, don't we need __always_inline if we want to force
> inlining?
Yes. Since ac7c3e4ff401 ("compiler: enable CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING forcibly").
cheers
