From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265840AbUHALiS (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Aug 2004 07:38:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265825AbUHALiS (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Aug 2004 07:38:18 -0400 Received: from hermes.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de ([129.187.202.12]:24035 "HELO hermes.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265823AbUHALiP (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Aug 2004 07:38:15 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 13:38:09 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: Jesper Juhl Cc: jgarzik@pobox.com, Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] net/hamachi.c: remove bogus inline at function prototype (fwd) Message-ID: <20040801113809.GM2746@fs.tum.de> References: <20040729140535.GU2349@fs.tum.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 01:21:22PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote: >... > Wouldn't it make sense to also un-inline hamachi_tx? both the _rx and _tx My primary goal was to fix the compilation with gcc 3.4, not to evaluate all inlines (which is also a good thing to do). > functions are quite big - are they really suitable to be inlined? Each of thamachi_{tx,rx} has exacly one caller, which might be a reason in favor of inlining. > Here's a proposed patch against 2.6.8-rc2-mm1 >... Looks good. > /Jesper Juhl cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed