В Fri, 19 Jul 2019 10:27:16 +0900 Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> пишет: > On 19. 7. 19. 오전 10:24, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > > On 19. 7. 19. 오전 10:22, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > >> В Thu, 18 Jul 2019 18:09:05 +0900 > >> Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> пишет: > >> > >>> On 19. 7. 16. 오후 10:35, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > >>>> 16.07.2019 15:26, Chanwoo Choi пишет: > >>>>> Hi Dmitry, > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm not sure that it is necessary. > >>>>> As I knew, usally, the 'inline' is used on header file > >>>>> to define the empty functions. > >>>>> > >>>>> Do we have to change it with 'inline' keyword? > >>>> > >>>> The 'inline' attribute tells compiler that instead of jumping > >>>> into the function, it should take the function's code and > >>>> replace the function's invocation with that code. This is done > >>>> in order to help compiler optimize code properly, please see > >>>> [1]. There is absolutely no need to create a function call into > >>>> a function that consists of a single instruction. > >>>> > >>>> [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.1.0/gcc/Inline.html > >>>> > >>> > >>> If you want to add 'inline' keyword, I recommend that > >>> you better to remove the modified function in this patch > >>> and then just call the 'write_relaxed or read_relaxed' function > >>> directly. It is same result when using inline keyword. > >> > >> That could be done, but it makes code less readable. > >> > >> See the difference: > >> > >> device_writel(dev, ACTMON_INTR_STATUS_CLEAR, > >> ACTMON_DEV_INTR_STATUS); > >> > >> writel_relaxed(ACTMON_INTR_STATUS_CLEAR, > >> dev->regs + ACTMON_DEV_INTR_STATUS); > > > > No problem if you add the detailed comment and you want to use > > the 'inline' keyword. > > Basically, I think that 'inline' keyword is not necessary. Sure, but I'm finding that it's always nicer to explicitly inline a very simple functions because compiler may not do it properly itself in some cases. > But if you want to use 'inline' keyword, I recommend > that call the 'write_relaxed or read_relaxed' function directly > with detailed description. Could you please reword this sentence? Not sure that I'm understanding it correctly.
