[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1466100705.19647.47.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:11:45 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] net: gianfar: fix old-style declaration
On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 21:02 +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 06/16/2016 04:52 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > Modern C standards expect the '__inline__' keyword to come before the return
> > type in a declaration, and we get a warning for this with "make W=1":
[]
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/gianfar.c
[]
> > @@ -2275,7 +2275,7 @@ static inline void gfar_tx_checksum(struct sk_buff *skb, struct txfcb *fcb,
> > fcb->flags = flags;
> > }
> >
> > -void inline gfar_tx_vlan(struct sk_buff *skb, struct txfcb *fcb)
> > +static inline void gfar_tx_vlan(struct sk_buff *skb, struct txfcb *fcb)
> You don't mention making it *static*. Though the function can be *static*
> indeed... the current policy also forbids *inline* in the *.c files, leaving
> the judgement to gcc.
While mostly true, (__always_inline vs inline vs nothing),
there are many inline uses in this file that could be removed
in a separate patch rather than removing just this one.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists