On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 06:12:37 -0600
Segher Boessenkool [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 10:35:48AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 3:10 AM Segher Boessenkool
[off-list ref] wrote:  

quoted

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 02:27:16AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:  

quoted

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 1:49 AM David Laight [off-list ref] wrote:  

quoted

That description is largely fine.

Inappropriate 'inline' ought to be removed.
Then 'inline' means - 'really do inline this'.  

You cannot change "static inline" to "static"
in header files.  

Why not?  Those two have identical semantics!  

e.g.)


[1] Open  include/linux/device.h with your favorite editor,
     then edit

static inline void *devm_kcalloc(struct device *dev,

    to

static void *devm_kcalloc(struct device *dev,


[2] Build the kernel  

You get some "defined but not used" warnings that are shushed for
inlines.  Do you see something else?

The semantics are the same.  Warnings are just warnings.  It builds
fine.

Kernel code should build with zero warnings, the compiler is telling you
something.