On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 06:12:37 -0600 Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 10:35:48AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 3:10 AM Segher Boessenkool > > <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 02:27:16AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 1:49 AM David Laight <david.lai...@aculab.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > That description is largely fine. > > > > > > > > > > Inappropriate 'inline' ought to be removed. > > > > > Then 'inline' means - 'really do inline this'. > > > > > > > > You cannot change "static inline" to "static" > > > > in header files. > > > > > > Why not? Those two have identical semantics! > > > > e.g.) > > > > > > [1] Open include/linux/device.h with your favorite editor, > > then edit > > > > static inline void *devm_kcalloc(struct device *dev, > > > > to > > > > static void *devm_kcalloc(struct device *dev, > > > > > > [2] Build the kernel > > You get some "defined but not used" warnings that are shushed for > inlines. Do you see something else? > > The semantics are the same. Warnings are just warnings. It builds > fine. Kernel code should build with zero warnings, the compiler is telling you something.
