On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 08:50:39PM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Mon, 03 Feb 2025 08:00:56 -0700 > Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > Document preference for non inline functions in .c files. > > > This has been the preference for as long as I can recall > > > and I was recently surprised to discover that it is undocumented. > > > > > > Reported-by: Alexandre Ferrieux <alexandre.ferrieux@xxxxxxxxx> > > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/9662e6fe-cc91-4258-aba1-ab5b016a041a@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 11 +++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > > > index e497729525d5..1fbb8178b8cd 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst > > > @@ -408,6 +408,17 @@ at a greater cost than the value of such clean-ups. > > > > > > Conversely, spelling and grammar fixes are not discouraged. > > > > > > +Inline functions > > > +---------------- > > > + > > > +The use of static inline functions in .c file is strongly discouraged As suggested by Andrew Lunn elsewhere in this thread I will drop "static" from the line above. > > > +unless there is a demonstrable reason for them, usually performance > > > +related. Rather, it is preferred to omit the inline keyword and allow the > > > +compiler to inline them as it sees fit. > > You should probably point to chapter (12) of Documentation/process/coding-style.rst > where it mentions that inline for function prototypes and as a way to >static replace macros are OK. Thanks, perhaps something like this would help: Using inline in .h files is fine and is encouraged in place of macros [reference section 12]. > > > > + > > > +This is a stricter requirement than that of the general Linux Kernel > > > +:ref:`Coding Style<codingstyle>` > > > > I have no objection to this change, but I do wonder if it does indeed > > belong in the central coding-style document. I don't think anybody > > encourages use of "inline" these days...? > > Indeed IMO this belongs to the coding style. I would place it close > to chapter (12) at Documentation/process/coding-style.rst. Sure, thanks to you and Jonathan for the positive feedback there. I will prepare a revised patch that updates coding-style.rst instead.
