Andy Whitcroft wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 01:48:14PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Andy, I thought we were going to whine about __inline__ and __inline, too?
Hmmm, I don't remember that coming up, but I'll add it to the todo. I
am assuming plain 'inline' is preferred over both of these --
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 11:43:28AM +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 01:48:14PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > Andy, I thought we were going to whine about __inline__ and __inline, too?
>
> Hmmm, I don't remember that coming up, but I'll add it to the todo. I
> am
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 01:48:14PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andy, I thought we were going to whine about __inline__ and __inline, too?
Hmmm, I don't remember that coming up, but I'll add it to the todo. I
am assuming plain 'inline' is preferred over both of these -- yell if
you meant
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 01:48:14PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Andy, I thought we were going to whine about __inline__ and __inline, too?
Hmmm, I don't remember that coming up, but I'll add it to the todo. I
am assuming plain 'inline' is preferred over both of these -- yell if
you meant
On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 11:43:28AM +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 01:48:14PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Andy, I thought we were going to whine about __inline__ and __inline, too?
Hmmm, I don't remember that coming up, but I'll add it to the todo. I
am assuming
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 01:48:14PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Andy, I thought we were going to whine about __inline__ and __inline, too?
Hmmm, I don't remember that coming up, but I'll add it to the todo. I
am assuming plain 'inline' is preferred over both of these --
On Friday 26 October 2007 02:55, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > Hmm, can we simply do
> >
> > static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile unsigned long *
> > addr) {
> > return test_and_set_bit(nr, addr);
> > }
> >
> > please ?
>
> Certainly. That does look better.
Thanks!
>
> ---
>
>
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:55:40 -0700
Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -#define test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit
> +static __inline__ int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile void * addr)
mutter.
ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
#80: FILE: include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h:188:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > Hmm, can we simply do
> >
> > static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile unsigned long *
> > addr)
> > {
> > return test_and_set_bit(nr, addr);
> > }
> >
> > please ?
>
> Certainly. That does look better.
Yup. Applied, thanks
> Hmm, can we simply do
>
> static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile unsigned long * addr)
> {
> return test_and_set_bit(nr, addr);
> }
>
> please ?
Certainly. That does look better.
---
From: Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Use duplicated inline functions for
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:00:19 +1000 Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 24 October 2007 15:09, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > From: Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > Can we expand this macro definition, or should I look for a way to
> > > fool^W
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:00:19 +1000 Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 October 2007 15:09, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > From: Randy Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Can we expand this macro definition, or should I look for a way to
> > fool^W teach kernel-doc about this?
> >
> > scripts/kernel-doc
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:00:19 +1000 Nick Piggin wrote:
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 15:09, Randy Dunlap wrote:
From: Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can we expand this macro definition, or should I look for a way to
fool^W teach kernel-doc about this?
scripts/kernel-doc says:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:00:19 +1000 Nick Piggin wrote:
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 15:09, Randy Dunlap wrote:
From: Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can we expand this macro definition, or should I look for a way to
fool^W teach kernel-doc
Hmm, can we simply do
static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile unsigned long * addr)
{
return test_and_set_bit(nr, addr);
}
please ?
Certainly. That does look better.
---
From: Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use duplicated inline functions for
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote:
Hmm, can we simply do
static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile unsigned long *
addr)
{
return test_and_set_bit(nr, addr);
}
please ?
Certainly. That does look better.
Yup. Applied, thanks
tglx
---
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:55:40 -0700
Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-#define test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit
+static __inline__ int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile void * addr)
mutter.
ERROR: foo * bar should be foo *bar
#80: FILE: include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h:188:
+static
On Friday 26 October 2007 02:55, Randy Dunlap wrote:
Hmm, can we simply do
static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile unsigned long *
addr) {
return test_and_set_bit(nr, addr);
}
please ?
Certainly. That does look better.
Thanks!
---
From: Randy Dunlap
18 matches
Mail list logo
