From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:33:21 +0900 From: Yasunori Goto Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: More __meminit annotations. In-Reply-To: <20070618055842.GA17858@linux-sh.org> References: <20070618143943.B108.Y-GOTO@jp.fujitsu.com> <20070618055842.GA17858@linux-sh.org> Message-Id: <20070618151544.B10A.Y-GOTO@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Paul Mundt , Yasunori Goto , Andrew Morton , Sam Ravnborg , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 02:49:24PM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote: > > > -static inline unsigned long zone_absent_pages_in_node(int nid, > > > +static inline unsigned long __meminit zone_absent_pages_in_node(int nid, > > > unsigned long zone_type, > > > unsigned long *zholes_size) > > > { > > > > I thought __meminit is not effective for these static functions, > > because they are inlined function. So, it depends on caller's > > defenition. Is it wrong? > > > Ah, that's possible, I hadn't considered that. It seems to be a bit more > obvious what the intention is if it's annotated, especially as this is > the convention that's used by the rest of mm/page_alloc.c. A bit more > consistent, if nothing more. I'm not sure which is intended. I found some functions define both __init and inline in kernel tree. And probably, some functions don't do it. So, it seems there is no convention. I'm Okay if you prefer both defined. :-) -- Yasunori Goto -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org