On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 5:46 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 5:56 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Then use the C preprocessor to force the inlining. I'm sorry it's not
> > > as pretty as static inline functions.
> >
> > Which makes us lose the baby^H^H^H^Htype checking performed
> > on function parameters, requiring to add more ugly checks.
>
> I'm 100% agreed on this.
>
> If the inline change is being pushed by people who say "you should
> have used macros instead if you wanted inlining", then I will just
> revert that stupid commit that is causing problems.
>
> No, the preprocessor is not the answer.
>
> That said, code that relies on inlining for _correctness_ should use
> "__always_inline" and possibly even have a comment about why.
>
> But I am considering just undoing commit 9012d011660e ("compiler:
> allow all arches to enable CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING") entirely.
No, please do not.
Macrofying the 'inline' is a horrid mistake that makes incorrect code work.
It would eternally prevent people from writing portable, correct code.
Please do not encourage to hide problems.
> The
> advantages are questionable, and when the advantages are balanced
> against actual regressions and the arguments are "use macros", that
> just shows how badly thought out this was.
>
> Linus
--
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada
