Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/sgx: account backing pages

[Dave Hansen]

On 1/14/22 3:52 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> I can understand your hesitation, but I agree with Dave here that
>> wrapping the function makes the code more clear. I would prefer to keep
>> this the way it is.
> What if sgx_encl_get_backing() was changed as "static inline", if the
> only motivation is encapsulation?

What would the purpose be of adding an 'inline' to the function definition?