From: "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>
To: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
Cc: mbligh@aracnet.com, alex.williamson@hp.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com,
acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ACPI] Re: [PATCH] cleanup ACPI numa warnings
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 14:36:31 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040808143631.7c18cae9.rddunlap@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040807105729.6adea633.pj@sgi.com>
On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 10:57:29 -0700 Paul Jackson wrote:
| > And there's nothing in CodingStyle that agrees with you that I could find.
|
| >From the file Documentation/SubmittingPatches:
|
| 3) 'static inline' is better than a macro
|
| Static inline functions are greatly preferred over macros.
| They provide type safety, have no length limitations, no formatting
| limitations, and under gcc they are as cheap as macros.
|
| Macros should only be used for cases where a static inline is clearly
| suboptimal [there a few, isolated cases of this in fast paths],
| or where it is impossible to use a static inline function [such as
| string-izing].
Oops. Thanks, Paul.
I agree that the inline looks better than the macro (more readable,
possibly more maintainable), but not that the multi-line macro
is _evil_ (which is what Martin said).
--
~Randy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-08 21:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-05 20:46 Alex Williamson
2004-08-05 21:01 ` Dave Hansen
2004-08-05 21:25 ` Alex Williamson
2004-08-06 3:35 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-08-06 3:50 ` [ACPI] " Randy.Dunlap
2004-08-07 17:57 ` Paul Jackson
2004-08-08 21:36 ` Randy.Dunlap [this message]
2004-08-09 2:53 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-08-20 18:55 ` Alex Williamson
2004-08-20 19:22 ` Jesse Barnes
2004-08-09 4:19 ` Alex Williamson
2004-08-09 4:52 ` Dave Hansen
2004-08-09 5:10 ` Alex Williamson
2004-08-09 5:44 ` Dave Hansen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040808143631.7c18cae9.rddunlap@osdl.org \
--to=rddunlap@osdl.org \
--cc=acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=alex.williamson@hp.com \
--cc=haveblue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=pj@sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®