Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754598AbZG2Pcf (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:32:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753259AbZG2Pcf (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:32:35 -0400 Received: from mtagate8.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.157]:42536 "EHLO mtagate8.de.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752875AbZG2Pce (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:32:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:32:31 +0200 From: Martin Schwidefsky To: dwalker@fifo99.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , john stultz Subject: Re: [RFC][patch 02/12] remove clocksource inline functions Message-ID: <20090729173231.012d0b89@skybase> In-Reply-To: <200907291457.n6TEvDAt003701@d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> References: <200907291457.n6TEvDAt003701@d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Organization: IBM Corporation X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.2 (GTK+ 2.16.4; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2093 Lines: 62 On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:57:13 -0600 dwalker@fifo99.com wrote: > On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 16:44 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:15:19 -0600 > > dwalker@fifo99.com wrote: > > > > > > Remove clocksource_read, clocksource_enable and clocksource_disable > > > > inline functions. No functional change. > > > > > > > > > > Your still not really explaining this one, is this suppose to be > > > cleaner? Or is this related to some other part of your clean up? > > > > The only one of the three inline functions that is a bit more > > complicated is clocksource_enable() because of the mult_orig logic. But > > that goes away with a later patch. The function aren't accessors either, > > they are used exclusively by the timekeeping code. In short, they are > > useless, don't you think? > > Above is what should go in your patch description .. Ok, sounds reasonable. > The reason that I'm not totally into this one is cause these inlines > help to document to the code.. > > If you have , > > struct clocksource cs; > > then several lines later you have > > cs->read(); > > vs, > > clocksource_read(cs); > > The later is completely clear, and the former isn't.. Instead of "cs" > you could pick any obscure name, and read() isn't exactly unique.. So > really any function in the clocksource structure has the potential for a > helper, and the inlines don't really cost anything .. Hmm, you have an object of type struct clocksource and you do cs->read(cs). If that is not clear enough then I don't know what is. We do that all over the place in the linux kernel. And I personally find these useless wrappers rather annoying. I don't like to have to jump to another place to find out that it just calls the read function of the object. -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/