[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1348747763.22822.70.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:09:23 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tj@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, neilb@...e.de, bfields@...ldses.org,
ejt@...hat.com, snitzer@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, rmallon@...il.com, palves@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] hashtable: introduce a small and naive hashtable
On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 10:33 +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Right, the flag thing in the macro was there just to make it work properly as a macro.
>
> >> Agreed that the flags should be removed. Moving to define + static
> >> inline is still important though.
> >
> > Not sure I'd bother making the function inline.
>
> I usually never make anything 'inline', I just let gcc do it's own thing when it compiles the code. If there are any objections
> please let me know before I send the new version.
But this is a header file. You guys have no problem with macros, but
refuse to use 'inline' for functions defined in header files? That
doesn't make sense. A 'static inline' is basically a gcc macro, but
without the side-effects.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists