Re: [PATCH] fix memory corruption from misinterpreted bad_inode_ops return values

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>]

Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> 
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 12:42:47 -0600 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net> wrote:
>> So here's the first stab at fixing it.  I'm sure there are style points
>> to be hashed out.  Putting all the functions as static inlines in a header
>> was just to avoid hundreds of lines of simple function declarations before
>> we get to the meat of bad_inode.c, but it's probably technically wrong to
>> put it in a header.  Also if putting a copyright on that trivial header file
>> is going overboard, just let me know.  Or if anyone has a less verbose
>> but still correct way to address this problem, I'm all ears.
> 
> Since the only uses of these functions is to take their addresses, the
> inline gains you nothing 

Hm, yes of course... my fingers just automatically type "static inline"
in header files I guess. :)

> and since the only uses are in the one file, you
> should just define them in that file.

Ok, will do.  That seems to be the consensus.

Thanks,

-Eric