2004-11-10 04:58:50

by Yoshinori Sato

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] fix "extern inline"

Signed-off-by: Yoshinori Sato <[email protected]>

===== include/linux/bitops.h 1.6 vs edited =====
--- 1.6/include/linux/bitops.h 2004-05-03 05:04:34 +09:00
+++ edited/include/linux/bitops.h 2004-11-08 15:36:48 +09:00
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@
* fls: find last bit set.
*/

-extern __inline__ int generic_fls(int x)
+static __inline__ int generic_fls(int x)
{
int r = 32;

@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@
return r;
}

-extern __inline__ int get_bitmask_order(unsigned int count)
+static __inline__ int get_bitmask_order(unsigned int count)
{
int order;

--
Yoshinori Sato
<[email protected]>


2004-12-01 01:35:08

by Andrew Grover

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: "extern inline" purge? was: Re: [PATCH] fix "extern inline"

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:55:23 +0900, Yoshinori Sato
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Yoshinori Sato <[email protected]>
> -extern __inline__ int generic_fls(int x)
> +static __inline__ int generic_fls(int x)

Along the lines of this patch, can I ask... if a patch were created to
replace all instances of "extern inline" with "static inline" would
that be a good thing or a waste of time? I found a 3 year old thread
(Jul 27 2001, "Re: [PATCH] gcc-3.0.1 and 2.4.7-ac1") where it sounded
like a good thing to do, but obviously there are some still around.

Regards -- Andy