...
> > +Inline functions
> > +
> > +
> > +The use of static inline functions in .c file is strongly discouraged
> > +unless there is a demonstrable reason for them, usually performance
> > +related. Rather, it is preferred to omit the inline keyword and allow the
> > +compiler to
On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 02:25:07PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Thanks, perhaps something like this would help:
> >
> > Using inline in .h files is fine and is encouraged in place of macros
> > [reference section 12].
>
> The other major use of them in headers is for stub functions when an
>
> Thanks, perhaps something like this would help:
>
> Using inline in .h files is fine and is encouraged in place of macros
> [reference section 12].
The other major use of them in headers is for stub functions when an
API implementation has a Kconfig option. The question is, do we really
wan
On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 10:51:49AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> Another nit:
>
> On 2/3/25 5:59 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> > Document preference for non inline functions in .c files.
> > This has been the preference for as long as I can recall
> > and I was recently surprised to disc
On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 08:53:12PM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Mon, 3 Feb 2025 20:50:39 +0100
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab escreveu:
>
> > Em Mon, 03 Feb 2025 08:00:56 -0700
> > Jonathan Corbet escreveu:
> >
> > > Simon Horman writes:
> > >
> > > > Document preference for non inline f
On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 08:50:39PM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Mon, 03 Feb 2025 08:00:56 -0700
> Jonathan Corbet escreveu:
>
> > Simon Horman writes:
> >
> > > Document preference for non inline functions in .c files.
> > > This has been the preference for as long as I can recall
>
On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 04:10:24PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Conversely, spelling and grammar fixes are not discouraged.
> >
> > +Inline functions
> > +
> > +
> > +The use of static inline functions in .c file is strongly discouraged
>
> I don't think 'static' is relevant he
Em Mon, 3 Feb 2025 20:50:39 +0100
Mauro Carvalho Chehab escreveu:
> Em Mon, 03 Feb 2025 08:00:56 -0700
> Jonathan Corbet escreveu:
>
> > Simon Horman writes:
> >
> > > Document preference for non inline functions in .c files.
> > > This has been the preference for as long as I can recall
> >
Em Mon, 03 Feb 2025 08:00:56 -0700
Jonathan Corbet escreveu:
> Simon Horman writes:
>
> > Document preference for non inline functions in .c files.
> > This has been the preference for as long as I can recall
> > and I was recently surprised to discover that it is undocumented.
> >
> > Reported
Hi Simon,
Another nit:
On 2/3/25 5:59 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> Document preference for non inline functions in .c files.
> This has been the preference for as long as I can recall
> and I was recently surprised to discover that it is undocumented.
>
> Reported-by: Alexandre Ferrieux
> Closes:
> Conversely, spelling and grammar fixes are not discouraged.
>
> +Inline functions
> +
> +
> +The use of static inline functions in .c file is strongly discouraged
I don't think 'static' is relevant here. They probably are static, if
they are inline, and to avoid warnings about
Simon Horman writes:
> Document preference for non inline functions in .c files.
> This has been the preference for as long as I can recall
> and I was recently surprised to discover that it is undocumented.
>
> Reported-by: Alexandre Ferrieux
> Closes:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/9662e6fe-cc
Document preference for non inline functions in .c files.
This has been the preference for as long as I can recall
and I was recently surprised to discover that it is undocumented.
Reported-by: Alexandre Ferrieux
Closes:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/9662e6fe-cc91-4258-aba1-ab5b016a0...@orange.com
13 matches
Mail list logo
