Declaring
inline int iwl3945_eeprom_acquire_semaphore(...)
is a bit weird for a function that is actually declared in a header file
and not static.
johannes
> This is not merge fallout, but has been this way since the driver was
> merged the first time.
Hm ok I thought it might have been a "static inline" in the header file
and gotten split up with the driver split.
> I do not know why it was done this way and I am
> not familiar enough with gcc optimization to know the implications of
> this (or what the better way should be). What do you suggest?
Well I think simply removing the inline will cause the compiler to do
the exact same thing as it does now and look less strange.
johannes
On Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:22 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> Declaring
>
> inline int iwl3945_eeprom_acquire_semaphore(...)
>
> is a bit weird for a function that is actually declared in a header
> file and not static.
This is not merge fallout, but has been this way since the driver was
merged the first time. I do not know why it was done this way and I am
not familiar enough with gcc optimization to know the implications of
this (or what the better way should be). What do you suggest?
Thanks
Reinette