Re: [ACPI] Re: [PATCH] cleanup ACPI numa warnings

[Martin J. Bligh]

--"Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@xxxxxxxx> wrote (on Sunday, August 08, 2004 14:36:31 -0700):

> On Sat, 7 Aug 2004 10:57:29 -0700 Paul Jackson wrote:
> 
>| > And there's nothing in CodingStyle that agrees with you that I could find.
>| 
>| > From the file Documentation/SubmittingPatches:
>| 
>|         3) 'static inline' is better than a macro
>| 
>|         Static inline functions are greatly preferred over macros.
>|         They provide type safety, have no length limitations, no formatting
>|         limitations, and under gcc they are as cheap as macros.
>| 
>|         Macros should only be used for cases where a static inline is clearly
>|         suboptimal [there a few, isolated cases of this in fast paths],
>|         or where it is impossible to use a static inline function [such as
>|         string-izing].
> 
> Oops.  Thanks, Paul.
> 
> I agree that the inline looks better than the macro (more readable,
> possibly more maintainable), but not that the multi-line macro
> is _evil_ (which is what Martin said).

It's not that this multi-line macro was particularly offensive ... it's
that I've seen the most heinous crap in the past ... and the only sensible
place I can find to draw a line is ... no multiline macros ;-)

M.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/