lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [ 01/10] [Suspend2] kernel/power/modules.h
Date
Hi.

On Thursday 02 February 2006 22:48, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 February 2006 23:01, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > > > +
> > > > +static inline void suspend_initialise_module_lists(void) {
> > > > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&suspend_filters);
> > > > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&suspend_writers);
> > > > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&suspend_modules);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > I couldn't find a user for this. I would imagine there's only one,
> > > though, and this should be inlined there?
>
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> > I forgot to mention re this - yes, there's just one caller, in another
> > set of patches I'll send later (this was just the first set!). Having the
> > function to be inlined in this .h so that it's with other module specific
> > code, and then used in the caller once it has been #included, isn't that
> > the right way to do things?
>
> Sorry, I can't parse the above :-). My point was that this is
> probably called in a .c file so move the function in that file and
> introduce it whenever you introduce the caller.

I understand that. However if I do it, I separate the routine from the code it
logically belongs with. On the other hand, I do no harm by leaving it in the
header. We don't end up with multiple copies of the routine.

Regards,

Nigel
--
See our web page for Howtos, FAQs, the Wiki and mailing list info.
http://www.suspend2.net IRC: #suspend2 on Freenode
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-02-02 22:33    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans