Dear Michal Simek,
> ext2_find_next_zero_bit must be also static if __swab32 is also static.
>
> Warning:
> include/asm/bitops.h:369:22: warning: '__fswab32' is static but
> used in inline function 'ext2_find_next_zero_bit'
> which is not static [enabled by default]
>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <mon...@monstr.eu>
> ---
> arch/microblaze/include/asm/bitops.h | 3 ++-
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/bitops.h
> b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/bitops.h index e8c835f..eafa2b5 100644
> --- a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/bitops.h
> +++ b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/bitops.h
> @@ -319,7 +319,8 @@ extern __inline__ int ext2_test_bit(int nr, const
> volatile void * addr) #define ext2_find_first_zero_bit(addr, size) \
> ext2_find_next_zero_bit((addr), (size), 0)
>
> -extern __inline__ unsigned long ext2_find_next_zero_bit(void *addr,
> unsigned long size, unsigned long offset) +static inline unsigned long
> ext2_find_next_zero_bit(void *addr,
> + unsigned long size, unsigned long offset)
> {
> unsigned long *p = ((unsigned long *) addr) + (offset >> 5);
> unsigned long result = offset & ~31UL;
I'd rather see it done the other way -- drop the inline and let compiler
decide.
What are the size penalties ?
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
