From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758713AbZKJXkr (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:40:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758703AbZKJXkq (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:40:46 -0500 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:44431 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757186AbZKJXkp (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:40:45 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:41:01 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Joe Perches Cc: mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:core/rcu] rcu: Remove inline from forward-referenced functions Message-ID: <20091110234101.GB8424@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <1257892710.25443.9.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> <20091110225926.GA8424@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1257894380.25443.16.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1257894380.25443.16.camel@Joe-Laptop.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 03:06:20PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 14:59 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > non-inline functions in .h files probably aren't a good idea. > > ;-) > > Here are my options: > [] > > Please note that kernel/rcutree_plugin.h is internal to RCU -- only > > kernel/rcutree.c includes it, so there is no possibility of conflicting > > definitions. > > > > Any options that I am missing? > > Maybe something like: > > #ifdef whatever > #define RCU_ANNOUNCE "Hierarchical RCU implementation.\n" > ... > #else > #define RCU_ANNOUNCE "Experimental preemptable hierarchical RCU implementation.\n" > ... > #endif > > Use pr_info(RCU_ANNOUNCE) instead of rcu_bootup_announce(); > > ? This would still be a forward reference, right? Unless I am missing something, changing from a static inline to a cpp macro doesn't change anything. Thanx, Paul