Lee Schermerhorn (via Andrew) wrote:
> +static inline void node_set_state(int node, enum node_states state)
> +{
> + __node_set(node, &node_states[state]);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void node_clear_state(int node, enum node_states state)
> +{
> + __node_clear(node, &node_states[state]);
> +}
Lee - would you get the same result (same compiled binary code) with
something like:
+static inline void node_set_state(int node, enum node_states state)
+{
+ node_set(node, node_states[state]);
+}
+
+static inline void node_clear_state(int node, enum node_states state)
+{
+ node_clear(node, node_states[state]);
+}
If so, then I're prefer the latter, as it doesn't depend on the strange
#define wrapping an inline implementation of node_set and node_clear.
In other words, the latter looks 'simpler'.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.925.600.0401
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
