From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 14:13:15 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v6 03/15] irq: gic: support hip04 gic In-Reply-To: References: <1399795571-17231-1-git-send-email-haojian.zhuang@linaro.org> <4785954.cZxbGoHV0t@wuerfel> Message-ID: <5771380.iAICUqpnKg@wuerfel> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thursday 15 May 2014 13:08:17 Christoffer Dall wrote: > On 15 May 2014 12:14, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thursday 15 May 2014 10:34:35 Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> > +static inline bool gic_is_standard(struct gic_chip_data *gic) > >> > >> Please loose all of the inlines. The compiler can do this by itself. > >> > >> > +{ > >> > + return (gic->nr_cpu_if == 8); > >> > +} > >> > + > > > > I think it's actually the common style to spell out the 'inline' > > for trivial helpers like this. The compiler doesn't need it, but > > it also doesn't hurt and most people write it. > > > Only in header files, no? > > I've been chastised previously for putting this in .c files. It's crazy to make it a hard rule for C files one way or the other, given that the compiler doesn't care. I normally spell out the the inline part in my code because I find that clearer to read. Arnd