netdev - Re: [PATCH] sh_eth: move inline functions to the header file

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: <55241213.50200@cogentembedded.com>
Date:	Tue, 07 Apr 2015 20:21:23 +0300
From:	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sh_eth: move inline functions to the header file

Hello.

On 04/07/2015 04:21 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

>> The explicitly inline functions belong to the header files, so move
>> cpu_to_edmac() and edmac_to_cpu() into the driver header.

> Why do they belong in the header file?

    Because they're explicitly *inline*. The functions in the .c file 
shouldn't have the *inline* keyword, DaveM wants us to rely on gcc's judgment.

> Are they (planned to be) used by
> another source file (EtherAVB?)?

    No.

> Currently no other source file besides sh_eth.c includes sh_eth.h, so
> IMHO sh_eth.h could just be absorbed by sh_eth.c.

    I agree, in principle.

[...]

>> Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>

> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>                          Geert

WBR, Sergei

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html