On 07/15/2015 07:49 PM, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Denys Vlasenko
> <vda.linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Sergei Shtylyov
>> <sergei.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> +#define IWL_READ_WRITE(static_inline) \
>>>> +static_inline void iwl_write8(struct iwl_trans *trans, u32 ofs, u8 val) \
>>>> +{ \
>>>> + trace_iwlwifi_dev_iowrite8(trans->dev, ofs, val); \
>>>> + iwl_trans_write8(trans, ofs, val); \
>>>> +} \
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> +#if !defined(CONFIG_IWLWIFI_DEVICE_TRACING)
>>>> +IWL_READ_WRITE(static inline)
>>>
>>> Not static_inline?
>>
>> Yes. Here we are putting two words, "static inline", in front of every
>> function definition.
>> --
>
> I'll try to come up with a patch that is easier for me to read, but I
> am really busy right now. Ping me in a week if you have heard from me
> earlier.
So how it is going with this patch?
In hindsight, I would use a different name for the macro parameter here:
#define IWL_READ_WRITE(static_inline) \
+static_inline void iwl_write8(...)
"static_inline" proved to be confusing.
Maybe perform s/static_inline/func_qualifier/ on the patch...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
