On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:31 AM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-06-07 at 10:26 -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > I get the feeling that the use of __inline__ or __inline (vs inline) > > in the kernel may be wrong and their use should be eradicated in the > > follow up patch set, but it would be cool if others have additional > > insight. > > __inline is easy and useful to remove as it's used in > just a few files. > > But __inline__ is used in a lot of files and locations: > > $ git grep -w --name-only __inline__ | wc -l > 154 > $ git grep -w __inline__ | wc -l > 503 > > Some of these files are used in asm includes as > well where __inline__ may be preferred by gcc > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Alternate-Keywords.html#Alternate-Keywords > > so perhaps asm exclusions would be necessary. Oops, just saw this email after sending v3: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/6/7/1055 Guess I should re-add __inline__ and __inline then to 1/3? https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/6/7/1060 ie: +#define __inline__ __inline__ inline instead of +#define __inline__ inline ? On the other hand, I was able to assemble with gcc+binutils and v3 as it stands. Reading the link you sent, it seems more about compiling with -pedantic or non-gnu C standards being used (I'd call that unlikely for the kernel). So it still seems incorrect to me the use of __inline__ (but I do appreciate the link!) at least in the kernel. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-efi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
