On 08:07 Wed 25 Jun , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > Right now, these are nice to have but maybe are needed for future > changes and trying to judge the waters in terms of inline use. I was > also experimenting with some header inclusion issues I ran into.
Like what? > > I likely fine about the first case (especially about > > osm_port_prof_set_ignored_port()), but the second function really looks > > as "one-line stuff" for me. > > By second function, I presume you are referring to > osm_port_prof_is_ignored_port. I'm not sure what you mean by "one line > stuff" but maybe that also applies to the other patch relating to inline > (opensm/osm_switch: Don't inline osm_switch_sp0_is_lmc_capable > function). I was about second patch, but osm_port_prof_is_ignored_port() is pretty short too. I would not bother and leave it to compiler to decide. Sasha _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
