[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150930163538.GC2627@mtj.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:35:38 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Joel Becker <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pratyush Anand <pratyush.anand@...il.com>,
target-devel@...r.kernel.org, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/23] usb-gadget: use per-attribute show and store
methods
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:32:19AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 12:20:46PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:19:25AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 03:35:14PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:50:53AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > > this (and the other helper below) could be macros just fine.
> > > >
> > > > They could, but they shouldn't. Inlines are always preferable over
> > > > function-like macros.
> > >
> > > says who ? And why ?
> >
> > Documentation/CodingStyle
>
> container_of() is type-safe, what is an inline function bringing as benefit ?
It's a general preference. Because there's enough benefit to going
with inline functions and there's extra benefit to be gained from
having consistent style of code and documentation, as a general rule,
we prefer inline functions over macros. If you have specific
technical arguments why macro is better, sure; otherwise, follow the
conventions for consistency if for nothing else.
--
tejun
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists