On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> >
> > Of course, at that point you might as well argue that the thing should not
> > exist at all, and that such a flag should just be removed entirely. Which
> > I certainly agree with - I think the only flag we need is "inline", and I
> > think it should mean what it damn well says.
>
> Also agreed, but there needs to start being some education about _not_ using
> inline so much in the kernel.
Actually, the nice part about "inline_hint" would be that then we could
have some nice config option like
#ifdef CONFIG_FULL_CALL_TRACE
#define inline_hint noinline
#elif defined(CONFIG_TRUST_COMPILER)
#define inline_hint /* */
#else
#define inline_hint __inline
#endif
and now the _only_ thing we need to do is to remove the
#define __inline __force_inline
thing, and just agree that "__inline" is the "native compiler meaning".
We have a few users of "__inline", but not very many. We can leave them
alone, or just convert them to __inline__ or inline.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
