On 24/04/2025 8:27 am, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > On 2025-04-24 00:46, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 23/04/2025 9:55 pm, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2025, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>> __inline was not mentioned in C-language-toolchain.rst, while >>>> __inline__ is not used in code under xen/. __inline is kept because it >>>> may be used in Xen. The ECLAIR configuration is now consistent with >>>> the >>>> documented extensions in the rst file. >>>> >>>> No functional change. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <nicola.vetr...@bugseng.com> >>> Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> >> >> Hmm. f96e2f64576cd >> >> I take it that patch shouldn't have gone in then? >> >> Regardless, now that we're putting it back in, we should put in both >> __inline and __inline__, so as not to need to come back and repeat this >> patch again. >> >> ~Andrew > > Did I miss the addition of __inline__ here? > https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/20250422113957.1289290-1-andrew.coop...@citrix.com/ > > > No issue with adjusting it as you wrote, but my understanding was that > only __inline will reenter the codebase. >
Sods law says that if we introduce __inline now, we might have __inline__ get back in too. For the other keywords, we cover all spellings, so we ought to be consistent here too. ~Andrew
