linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] md/raid5: Factor out ahead_of

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <7c2c8d8e-f13f-ac89-40c6-7d5c5c084970@linux.dev>
Date:   Fri, 29 Apr 2022 08:24:44 +0800
From:   Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@...ux.dev>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
        Martin Oliveira <Martin.Oliveira@...eticom.com>,
        David Sloan <David.Sloan@...eticom.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] md/raid5: Factor out ahead_of_reshape() function



On 4/28/22 11:44 PM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
> On 2022-04-27 19:49, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
>>
>> On 4/28/22 12:07 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-26 19:28, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
>>>>>     +static bool ahead_of_reshape(struct mddev *mddev, sector_t sector,
>>>>> +                 sector_t reshape_sector)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    if (mddev->reshape_backwards)
>>>>> +        return sector < reshape_sector;
>>>>> +    else
>>>>> +        return sector >= reshape_sector;
>>>>> +}
>>>> I think it can be an inline function.
>>> Marking static functions in C files as inline is not recommended. GCC
>>> will inline it, if it is appropriate.
>>>
>>> https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/inline.html
>>> https://www.kernel.org/doc/local/inline.html
>> Thanks for the link, then I suppose those can be deleted
>> linux> grep "static inline" drivers/md/md.h -r
> It's standard practice to annotate small functions in headers with
> "static inline". Without the inline annotation, any C file that includes
> the header and doesn't use the function will emit a "defined but not
> used warning".
>
> Functions in headers also should, by definition, be small and
> specifically inline-able (ie they are used as a type-safe macro).
>
> static functions in C files (not headers) should not have the inline
> keyword as GCC can optimize them and inline them as it sees fit and the
> inline keyword doesn't actually do anything.

I am happy to be taught, but still I can see lots of static function in 
C files
as well, at least

linux> grep "static inline" drivers/md/*.c -r|wc
      98     661    8630

Anyway, I don't want to argue about it anymore.

Thanks,
Guoqing