netdev - Re: [PATCH net] docs: netdev: Document guidance on inline functions

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: <874j1bt6mv.fsf@trenco.lwn.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2025 08:00:56 -0700
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, "David S. Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski
 <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Alexandre Ferrieux <alexandre.ferrieux@...il.com>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] docs: netdev: Document guidance on inline functions

Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org> writes:

> Document preference for non inline functions in .c files.
> This has been the preference for as long as I can recall
> and I was recently surprised to discover that it is undocumented.
>
> Reported-by: Alexandre Ferrieux <alexandre.ferrieux@...il.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/9662e6fe-cc91-4258-aba1-ab5b016a041a@orange.com/
> Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 11 +++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> index e497729525d5..1fbb8178b8cd 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
> @@ -408,6 +408,17 @@ at a greater cost than the value of such clean-ups.
>  
>  Conversely, spelling and grammar fixes are not discouraged.
>  
> +Inline functions
> +----------------
> +
> +The use of static inline functions in .c file is strongly discouraged
> +unless there is a demonstrable reason for them, usually performance
> +related. Rather, it is preferred to omit the inline keyword and allow the
> +compiler to inline them as it sees fit.
> +
> +This is a stricter requirement than that of the general Linux Kernel
> +:ref:`Coding Style<codingstyle>`

I have no objection to this change, but I do wonder if it does indeed
belong in the central coding-style document.  I don't think anybody
encourages use of "inline" these days...?

jon