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: <20250204115522.GX234677@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 11:55:22 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	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

On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 08:53:12PM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Mon, 3 Feb 2025 20:50:39 +0100
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> escreveu:
> 
> > Em Mon, 03 Feb 2025 08:00:56 -0700
> > Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> escreveu:
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > You should probably point to chapter (12) of Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> > where it mentions that inline for function prototypes and as a way to
> > replace macros are OK.
> 
> Heh, I hit enter too quickly...
> 
> I mean:
> 	"inline for function prototypes and as a way to replace macros on
> 	 header files (*.h) are OK."

Likewise, I responded to your previous message too quickly.

Yes, I agree something like that would be good.

> 
> > 
> > > > +
> > > > +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...?
> > 
> > Indeed IMO this belongs to the coding style. I would place it close
> > to chapter (12) at Documentation/process/coding-style.rst.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Mauro
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Mauro
>