Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 12:42:47 -0600 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> So here's the first stab at fixing it. I'm sure there are style points >> to be hashed out. Putting all the functions as static inlines in a header >> was just to avoid hundreds of lines of simple function declarations before >> we get to the meat of bad_inode.c, but it's probably technically wrong to >> put it in a header. Also if putting a copyright on that trivial header file >> is going overboard, just let me know. Or if anyone has a less verbose >> but still correct way to address this problem, I'm all ears. > > Since the only uses of these functions is to take their addresses, the > inline gains you nothing Hm, yes of course... my fingers just automatically type "static inline" in header files I guess. :) > and since the only uses are in the one file, you > should just define them in that file. Ok, will do. That seems to be the consensus. Thanks, -Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
