From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264717AbUHHVrl (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Aug 2004 17:47:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263943AbUHHVrk (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Aug 2004 17:47:40 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:20869 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265038AbUHHVrT (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Aug 2004 17:47:19 -0400 Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 14:36:31 -0700 From: "Randy.Dunlap" To: Paul Jackson 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 Message-Id: <20040808143631.7c18cae9.rddunlap@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20040807105729.6adea633.pj@sgi.com> References: <1091738798.22406.9.camel@tdi> <1091739702.31490.245.camel@nighthawk> <1091741142.22406.28.camel@tdi> <249150000.1091763309@[10.10.2.4]> <20040805205059.3fb67b71.rddunlap@osdl.org> <20040807105729.6adea633.pj@sgi.com> Organization: OSDL X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.8a (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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