On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 03:26:42PM +0000, James Clark wrote:
On 14/03/2025 9:50 am, Leo Yan wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:39:42AM +0000, James Clark wrote:
These are all static and in one compilation unit so the inline has no effect on the binary.
I read the doc coding-style.rst, the section "15) The inline disease", my understanding is though the inline is not encouraged, I prefer we can follow up the rule:
A reasonable rule of thumb is to not put inline at functions that have more than 3 lines of code in them. An exception to this rule are the cases where a parameter is known to be a compile time constant, and as a result of this constantness you *know* the compiler will be able to optimize most of your function away at compile time. For a good example of this later case, see the kmalloc() inline function.
Isn't this advice about whether to make an inline function in a header file or do definition + declaration?
Maybe it is not about where defines inline functions. It is about how these inline functions are invoked. E.g., in a single C file, a inline function can be invoked in multiple places, and it is possible the incline function can optimized by compiler case by case.
To be honest, I don't really understand how compiler works :)
[...]
I think it can be useful, I've used it a little bit. Might as well make it easier to use for someone if it exists.
Sure. This patch is fine for me. I verified this patch with default kernel configuration (-O2, -g), it does works as expected (no code and data section's size change between with and without this patch).
Thanks, Leo