On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 22:34 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > The naming problem remains though: > > - Perhaps we could introduce a name for the first category: __must_inline? > __should_inline? Not because it wouldnt mean 'always', but because it is > 'always inline' for another reason than the correctless __always_inline. > > - Another possible approach wuld be to rename the second category to > __force_inline. That would signal it rather forcefully that the inlining > there is an absolute correctness issue.
__needs_inline? That would imply that it's for correctness reasons. Then __always_inline is left to mean that it doesn't _need_ to be inline but we _want_ it inline regardless of what gcc thinks? $0.02 Harvey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
