On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 03:50:37AM -0500, Frediano Ziglio wrote: > > > > From: Christophe de Dinechin <dinec...@redhat.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Christophe de Dinechin <dinec...@redhat.com> > > --- > > docs/spice_style.txt | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/docs/spice_style.txt b/docs/spice_style.txt > > index 3e463d2f..74f4e29d 100644 > > --- a/docs/spice_style.txt > > +++ b/docs/spice_style.txt > > @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ If multiple related constants are to be defined, > > consider > > the use of enumeration > > Short functions > > --------------- > > > > -Try to split code to short functions, each having simple functionality, in > > order to improve code readability and re-usability. Prefix with inline short > > functions or functions that were splitted for readability reason. > > +Try to split code to short functions, each having simple functionality, in > > order to improve code readability and re-usability. Prefix with `inline` > > functions that were splitted for readability reason or that are very short. > > > > Return on if > > ------------ > > I really don't understanding the aiming of both version. > Is mixing the inline concept (optimization suggestion) with readability > and I don't understand the reason.
I'd just drop any mention of 'inline'. If it's short, better to let the compiler decide for you, unless you have measured that the function really has to be inlined. Christophe
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Spice-devel mailing list Spicefirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel