On Fri, 9 Jan 2009, Harvey Harrison wrote: > > > > Of course, at that point you might as well argue that the thing should not > > exist at all, and that such a flag should just be removed entirely. Which > > I certainly agree with - I think the only flag we need is "inline", and I > > think it should mean what it damn well says. > > Also agreed, but there needs to start being some education about _not_ using > inline so much in the kernel. Actually, the nice part about "inline_hint" would be that then we could have some nice config option like #ifdef CONFIG_FULL_CALL_TRACE #define inline_hint noinline #elif defined(CONFIG_TRUST_COMPILER) #define inline_hint /* */ #else #define inline_hint __inline #endif and now the _only_ thing we need to do is to remove the #define __inline __force_inline thing, and just agree that "__inline" is the "native compiler meaning". We have a few users of "__inline", but not very many. We can leave them alone, or just convert them to __inline__ or inline. Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
