On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 10:51:49AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote: > Hi Simon, > > Another nit: > > On 2/3/25 5:59 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > > 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 > > +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. > > + > > +This is a stricter requirement than that of the general Linux Kernel > > +:ref:`Coding Style<codingstyle>` > > Is there an ending period (full stop) after that sentence? > Could/should there be? Thanks, I think so. I will add one.
