On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 11:32:51AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > I'm still iffy on whether or not this series makes sense to apply
> > without the rest of the code that depends on it, but I'll leave that up
> > to Junio whether he wants to take the series as it is now, or wait for
> > other patches to come in on top.
>
> Sorry but I am not sure what you mean by "the code that depends on
> it". Are these two functions unused anywhere in the code? If so,
> the right way to clean them up may not be to turn them from inline
> to a proper definition, but to remove them ;-).
>
> If they have existing callers and it can be demonstrated that their
> callers do not benefit from them being inline, that by itself is a
> worthy clean-up, without adding any more callers, no?
>
> Confused...
Sorry for the confusion. I mean the following:
- These functions have existing callers that Nipunn claims do not need
to be explicitly inlined.
- These functions are being moved to be part of the fsmonitor public
interface (presumably so that new callers can be added).
...And I was wondering whether you wanted to wait for new callers
before applying these to your tree.
Thanks,
Taylor
