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: <a2ae1cda-8210-4e6c-86ea-0ee864e13b23@lunn.ch>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:10:24 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	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

>  Conversely, spelling and grammar fixes are not discouraged.
>  
> +Inline functions
> +----------------
> +
> +The use of static inline functions in .c file is strongly discouraged

I don't think 'static' is relevant here. They probably are static, if
they are inline, and to avoid warnings about missing declarations. But
we just prefer not to have any sort of inline functions without good
justifications within a .c file.

A nit pick, so:

Reviewed-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>

    Andrew