On Saturday 19 July 2014 10:53:38 Sam Ravnborg wrote:
>
> Then there are the other type where one IO access function
> may re-use the implementation of another IO access function:
>
> #ifndef writeb
> #define writeb __raw_writeb
> #endif
>
> This could have been implmented like this:
>
> #ifndef writeb
> #define writeb writeb
> static inline void writeb(u8 b, volatile void __iomem *addr)
> {
> __raw_writeb(b, addr);
> }
> #endif
>
> In this way the prototype of the function is easy to understand and
> we avoid the macro tricks were we blindly replace one function name,
> with another function name.
> And we also use the same pattarn all over for the various functions.
>
> Concerning the efficiency the compiler should be smart enough to
> do the same independent on the two implmentations.
I really don't have a strong opinion on those, as you say one is a
little shorter and the other is a little more readable, so my
preference in a case like this is to leave it up to the person
who last touches the code and let them decide.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
