On 07/15/2015 07:49 PM, Emmanuel Grumbach wrote:

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Denys Vlasenko
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Sergei Shtylyov
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

+#define IWL_READ_WRITE(static_inline) \
+static_inline void iwl_write8(struct iwl_trans *trans, u32 ofs, u8 val) \
+{ \
+       trace_iwlwifi_dev_iowrite8(trans->dev, ofs, val); \
+       iwl_trans_write8(trans, ofs, val); \
+} \

[...]

quoted

+#if !defined(CONFIG_IWLWIFI_DEVICE_TRACING)
+IWL_READ_WRITE(static inline)

   Not static_inline?

Yes. Here we are putting two words, "static inline", in front of every
function definition.
--

I'll try to come up with a patch that is easier for me to read, but I
am really busy right now. Ping me in a week if you have heard from me
earlier.

So how it is going with this patch?

In hindsight, I would use a different name for the macro parameter here:

#define IWL_READ_WRITE(static_inline) \
+static_inline void iwl_write8(...)

"static_inline" proved to be confusing.
Maybe perform s/static_inline/func_qualifier/ on the patch...