From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Williamson Subject: Re: [PATCH] cleanup ACPI numa warnings Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 22:19:44 -0600 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <1092025184.2292.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1091738798.22406.9.camel@tdi> <1091739702.31490.245.camel@nighthawk> <1091741142.22406.28.camel@tdi> <249150000.1091763309@[10.10.2.4]> <20040805205059.3fb67b71.rddunlap@osdl.org> <20040807105729.6adea633.pj@sgi.com> <20040808143631.7c18cae9.rddunlap@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20040808143631.7c18cae9.rddunlap@osdl.org> To: "Randy.Dunlap" Cc: Paul Jackson , mbligh@aracnet.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2004-08-08 at 14:36 -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 10:57:29 -0700 Paul Jackson wrote: > > | > And there's nothing in CodingStyle that agrees with you that I could find. > | > | >From the file Documentation/SubmittingPatches: > | > | 3) 'static inline' is better than a macro > | > Oops. Thanks, Paul. Ok, I was all set to switch to static inlines, but it doesn't work. Compiling w/ debug on, _dbg is undefined, which is part of the ACPI_DB_INFO macro, but it only gets setup by the ACPI_FUNCTION_NAME macro. Guess I got lucky by choosing to do it as a macro. IMHO, it doesn't really make sense to make the static inline functions more complicated or hide where they're getting called to make this all work. So, I think the choices are to stick with the ugly macros or put #ifdefs around the code and essentially leave it the way it is. Sorry I didn't give it a more thorough look when originally questioned. Better ideas? Thanks, Alex