From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D301C3E8C5 for ; Sun, 29 Nov 2020 22:32:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFEDE2078D for ; Sun, 29 Nov 2020 22:32:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727920AbgK2Wcg (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Nov 2020 17:32:36 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0038.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.38]:54750 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726293AbgK2Wcf (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Nov 2020 17:32:35 -0500 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (clb03-v110.bra.tucows.net [216.40.38.60]) by smtprelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCA761802926E; Sun, 29 Nov 2020 22:31:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-HE-Tag: truck72_1107d5f2739c X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2134 Received: from XPS-9350.home (unknown [47.151.128.180]) (Authenticated sender: joe@perches.com) by omf20.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 29 Nov 2020 22:31:53 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <9dfe4206580f2c0d59ca0a9e510054ce378cb2d8.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] locks: remove trailing semicolon in macro definition From: Joe Perches To: James Bottomley , Randy Dunlap , Tom Rix , Matthew Wilcox Cc: jlayton@kernel.org, bfields@fieldses.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 14:31:51 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <20201127190707.2844580-1-trix@redhat.com> <20201127195323.GZ4327@casper.infradead.org> <8e7c0d56-64f3-d0b6-c1cf-9f285c59f169@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.1-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2020-11-29 at 10:15 -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > I think nowadays we should always use static inlines for argument > checking unless we're capturing debug information like __FILE__ or > __LINE__ or something that a static inline can't. IMO: __LINE__ should never be used. __func__ is the only thing that can't be captured correctly as the inline gets its own name. __builtin_return_address(1) would generally work well enough for the inlines. > There was a time when we had problems with compiler expansion of static > inlines, so we shouldn't go back and churn the code base to change it > because there's thousands of these and possibly some old compiler used > for an obscure architecture that still needs the define. That's not a very compelling argument to me. Those old compilers and obscure architectures should continue to use the old versions of the code.