more iwlwifi merge fallout?

more iwlwifi merge fallout?

[Johannes Berg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 168 bytes --]

Declaring

inline int iwl3945_eeprom_acquire_semaphore(...)

is a bit weird for a function that is actually declared in a header file
and not static.

johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]

RE: more iwlwifi merge fallout?

[Chatre, Reinette]

On Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:22 PM, Johannes Berg  wrote:

> Declaring
> 
> inline int iwl3945_eeprom_acquire_semaphore(...)
> 
> is a bit weird for a function that is actually declared in a header
> file and not static.

This is not merge fallout, but has been this way since the driver was
merged the first time. I do not know why it was done this way and I am
not familiar enough with gcc optimization to know the implications of
this (or what the better way should be). What do you suggest?

Thanks

Reinette

RE: more iwlwifi merge fallout?

[Johannes Berg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 557 bytes --]


> This is not merge fallout, but has been this way since the driver was
> merged the first time. 

Hm ok I thought it might have been a "static inline" in the header file
and gotten split up with the driver split.

> I do not know why it was done this way and I am
> not familiar enough with gcc optimization to know the implications of
> this (or what the better way should be). What do you suggest?

Well I think simply removing the inline will cause the compiler to do
the exact same thing as it does now and look less strange.

johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 828 bytes --]