Re: [PATCH] Introduce ppc_pci_flags accessors

[Trent Piepho <tpiepho@freescale.com>]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:46:28 +1100
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI
>>> +extern unsigned int ppc_pci_flags;
>>> +#define ppc_pci_set_flags(flags) ppc_pci_flags = (flags)
>>> +#define ppc_pci_add_flags(flags) ppc_pci_flags |= (flags)
>>> +#define ppc_pci_flag_is_set(flag) (ppc_pci_flags & (flag))
>>> +#else
>>> +#define ppc_pci_set_flags(flags) do {} while (0)
>>> +#define ppc_pci_add_flags(flags) do {} while (0)
>>> +#define ppc_pci_flag_is_set(flag) (0)
>>> +#endif
>>
>> I hate to be picky, but I don't see any reason why these shouldn't be
>> static inlines.
>
> There's a perfectly good reason.  I AM LAZY.
>
> That aside, it doesn't matter to me either way.  If the general idea
> seems fine and the naming of the functions is acceptable, I'd be happy
> to respin.

If were allowed to be picky, I think ppc_pci_has_flag() is a better name
than ppc_pci_flag_is_set().  Matches the other function names better, and a
quick grep of the kernel source shows bar_has_foo() is much more common
than bar_foo_is_set().