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

[Randy.Dunlap]

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).


--
~Randy
-
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/