From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from crystal.sipsolutions.net ([195.210.38.204]:55345 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031355AbXDZROM (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:14:12 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] wext: reduce inline abuse From: Johannes Berg To: jt@hpl.hp.com Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20070426165032.GB22576@bougret.hpl.hp.com> References: <20070424180732.371620000@sipsolutions.net> <20070424180849.651555000@sipsolutions.net> <20070426165032.GB22576@bougret.hpl.hp.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-y3qfPucXZSNHhXurlwUE" Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:14:05 +0200 Message-Id: <1177607646.6814.106.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-y3qfPucXZSNHhXurlwUE Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 09:50 -0700, Jean Tourrilhes wrote: > That's clearly not true of all compilers. All gcc versions > before 4.0 need serious help to inline functions used only once. Our > current minimal requirement for the kernel is gcc 3.2, therefore this > code is still useful. > Note that this is a legitimate use of inline (tell the > compiler to inline the function), not an abuse. No, the abuse is using inline in the first place because it doesn't matter, none of this has an actual reason to be inlined. johannes --=-y3qfPucXZSNHhXurlwUE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Johannes Berg (powerbook) iD8DBQBGMN3d/ETPhpq3jKURAlFeAJ0d3nWHI8bXfWWdOFVAii+GAz5dtwCgtj3t F2zsmBU7+QilMa474j3nijA= =T5HB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-y3qfPucXZSNHhXurlwUE--