On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 08:50:39PM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:

Em Mon, 03 Feb 2025 08:00:56 -0700
Jonathan Corbet [off-list ref] escreveu:

quoted

Simon Horman [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Document preference for non inline functions in .c files.
This has been the preference for as long as I can recall
and I was recently surprised to discover that it is undocumented.

Reported-by: Alexandre Ferrieux <redacted>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/9662e6fe-cc91-4258-aba1-ab5b016a041a@orange.com/ (local)
Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
---
 Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst | 11 +++++++++++
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
index e497729525d5..1fbb8178b8cd 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/maintainer-netdev.rst

@@ -408,6 +408,17 @@ at a greater cost than the value of such clean-ups.
 
 Conversely, spelling and grammar fixes are not discouraged.
 
+Inline functions
+----------------
+
+The use of static inline functions in .c file is strongly discouraged

As suggested by Andrew Lunn elsewhere in this thread I will drop
"static" from the line above.

quoted

quoted

+unless there is a demonstrable reason for them, usually performance
+related. Rather, it is preferred to omit the inline keyword and allow the
+compiler to inline them as it sees fit.

You should probably point to chapter (12) of Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
where it mentions that inline for function prototypes and as a way to
static  replace macros are OK.

Thanks, perhaps something like this would help:

  Using inline in .h files is fine and is encouraged in place of macros
  [reference section 12].

quoted

quoted

+
+This is a stricter requirement than that of the general Linux Kernel
+:ref:`Coding Style<codingstyle>`  

I have no objection to this change, but I do wonder if it does indeed
belong in the central coding-style document.  I don't think anybody
encourages use of "inline" these days...?

Indeed IMO this belongs to the coding style. I would place it close
to chapter (12) at Documentation/process/coding-style.rst.

Sure, thanks to you and Jonathan for the positive feedback there.
I will prepare a revised patch that updates coding-style.rst instead.