Re: gart: factor out common code

["SL Baur" <steve@xemacs.org>]

On 4/16/08, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
> SL Baur wrote:

> I think the casts make it more clear because the register is 32bit.
>  The only truly ugly bit is naming a variable "tmp".

Good point.

>  > that function is too big to be inlined so you should probably drop the explicit
>  > `inline' and let the compiler decide.

> In a header static inline is needed, otherwise the compiler will warn
>  about an unused static if it's not used which is unfortunate because
>  not every includer wants to use all functions.
>
>  That said the function should probably not be in a header.

Yes.  Agreed.  I'm happy enough having common duplicated
code removed, but I know Ingo is picky about saving space
whenever he can, so I thought I would point it out now before
it becomes a maintenance issue.

Thanks for the feedback.  I'll focus harder on future reviews.

-sb