Re: [PATCH 5/11v2] ata: replace macro with static inline in libata.h

[Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:08:50 -0800
Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 22:53 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > NAK. This is a sparse bug, fix sparse.
> > > 
> > > Yes, fair enough, but that's not all the patch is about.
> > > 
> > > 1) it's using a max_t and min_t to force the comparisons as shorts, why
> > > not just make it a static inline?
> > 
> > Because max_t and min_t also force the comparsion types
> 
> Umm, maybe I'm missing something then, but how does the static inline
> not do this?

You claimed it was an advantage of the static inline earlier but both do
anyway

> OK, maybe not much clearer.  But isn't the inline easier to see at
> a glance that it is returning a value constrained to be
> 
> vmin <= v <= vmax
> 
> I suppose the variable names make it clear, but the macro construction
> is (slightly) less obvious.

Perhaps then clamp_t()

> __mint __maxt...but I'm not proposing that.

I am - as I bet there are other examples of that construct in the tree.

> > gcc still sometimes seems to optimise macros better than inlines.
> 
> OK, I didn't realize that, any pointers?

Not offhand, there is discussion in the archives but it may be somewhat
out of date for the latest gcc.

I'm not arguing your change is -wrong- I just think the original is
tidier and clearer. Its up to Jeff anyway