Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Where do we stand with the Xen patches?

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>]

On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 07:03 -0400, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 06:39 -0400, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 May 2009 11:28:53 +0100
> > Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk> wrote:
> >  
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PCI_XEN
> > > +extern int xen_range_needs_mapping(phys_addr_t paddr, size_t
> size);
> > > +#else
> > > +static inline int xen_range_needs_mapping(phys_addr_t paddr,
> size_t size) { return 0; }
> > > +#endif
> > 
> > I know Xen can do something like this but you think that this is
> > clean?
> 
> Well, defining a static inline function when a CONFIG option is
> disabled is fairly idiomatic in the kernel and in general hiding these
> sorts of things in the headers in this way is preferred to having them
> in .c files.

Although I do concede that the function definition would probably be
better placed in a xen specific header.

Ian.