Re: [PATCH] Re: 2.4.8-pre1 build error in drivers/parport/parport_pc.c

[Robert Schiele <rschiele@uni-mannheim.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1074 bytes --]

On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 05:39:22PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> I think you did miss the vital point: this will probably break with 
> CONFIG_PARPORT_OTHER.

No this cannot happen. These functions are only used from source files
that also include parport_pc.h. If this were not the case, it would
have been a bug anyway.

> 
> Declaring them "extern inline" in parport_pc.h is exactly the right thing to 
> do.  What do you think is wrong with that?

The "extern" was only an escape for the case that the compiler cannot
inline the function. Due to the fact, that current gcc has "static
inline" it is better to use this, because with "static inline" we do
not need to keep a global symbol just for the case the compiler is not
capable to inline the function in some place.

Let's turn the tables: What do you think is wrong with "static
inline"? In my opinion it's a much cleaner solution than "extern
inline".

Robert

-- 
Robert Schiele			mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de
Tel./Fax: +49-621-10059		http://webrum.uni-mannheim.de/math/rschiele/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 524 bytes --]