RE: [2.6 patch] drivers/dma/: no "static inline" in C files

> Thanks Adrian, > > Dan, this applies to your code. Mind adding it to your tree? > > - Chris > > > On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 15:16 -0800, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > This patch changes "static inline"s in C files to "static": > gcc should know best whether or not to inline a static function. > >

Re: [2.6 patch] drivers/dma/: no "static inline" in C files

Thanks Adrian, Dan, this applies to your code. Mind adding it to your tree? - Chris On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 15:16 -0800, Adrian Bunk wrote: This patch changes "static inline"s in C files to "static": gcc should know best whether or not to inline a static function. Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk

Re: [2.6 patch] drivers/dma/: no static inline in C files

Thanks Adrian, Dan, this applies to your code. Mind adding it to your tree? - Chris On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 15:16 -0800, Adrian Bunk wrote: This patch changes static inlines in C files to static: gcc should know best whether or not to inline a static function. Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk

RE: [2.6 patch] drivers/dma/: no static inline in C files

Thanks Adrian, Dan, this applies to your code. Mind adding it to your tree? - Chris On Sun, 2007-02-25 at 15:16 -0800, Adrian Bunk wrote: This patch changes static inlines in C files to static: gcc should know best whether or not to inline a static function. Signed-off-by:

[2.6 patch] drivers/dma/: no "static inline" in C files

This patch changes "static inline"s in C files to "static": gcc should know best whether or not to inline a static function. Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- drivers/dma/async_tx.c | 12 ++-- drivers/dma/iop-adma.c | 14 +++--- 2 files changed, 13

[2.6 patch] drivers/dma/: no static inline in C files

This patch changes static inlines in C files to static: gcc should know best whether or not to inline a static function. Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- drivers/dma/async_tx.c | 12 ++-- drivers/dma/iop-adma.c | 14 +++--- 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+),