Hi Eric, On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 12:42:47 -0600 Eric Sandeen <[email protected]> wrote: > > So here's the first stab at fixing it. I'm sure there are style points > to be hashed out. Putting all the functions as static inlines in a header > was just to avoid hundreds of lines of simple function declarations before > we get to the meat of bad_inode.c, but it's probably technically wrong to > put it in a header. Also if putting a copyright on that trivial header file > is going overboard, just let me know. Or if anyone has a less verbose > but still correct way to address this problem, I'm all ears. Since the only uses of these functions is to take their addresses, the inline gains you nothing and since the only uses are in the one file, you should just define them in that file. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell [email protected] http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgpqC7xZrPI70.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: [patch 2.6.19-git] rts-rs5c372 updates: more chips, alarm, 12hr mode, etc
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] fix memory corruption from misinterpreted bad_inode_ops return values
- Previous by thread: [PATCH] fix memory corruption from misinterpreted bad_inode_ops return values
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] fix memory corruption from misinterpreted bad_inode_ops return values
- Index(es):
 |