Re: [PATCH v2] bitops kernel-doc: inline instead of macro

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:55:40 -0700
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> -#define test_and_set_bit_lock test_and_set_bit
> +static __inline__ int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile void * addr)

mutter.

ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
#80: FILE: include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h:188:
+static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile unsigned long * addr)

WARNING: Use of volatile is usually wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
#80: FILE: include/asm-x86/bitops_32.h:188:
+static inline int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile unsigned long * addr)

ERROR: "foo * bar" should be "foo *bar"
#97: FILE: include/asm-x86/bitops_64.h:178:
+static __inline__ int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile void * addr)

WARNING: Use of volatile is usually wrong: see Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt
#97: FILE: include/asm-x86/bitops_64.h:178:
+static __inline__ int test_and_set_bit_lock(int nr, volatile void * addr)

total: 2 errors, 2 warnings, 28 lines checked
Your patch has style problems, please review.  If any of these errors
are false positives report them to the maintainer, see
CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.

We might as well clean stuff up as we're churning the code.


Andy, I thought we were going to whine about __inline__ and __inline, too?
-
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/