[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/4] microblaze: Fix compilation warning in ext2_find_next_zero_bit

[Marek Vasut]

Dear Michal Simek,

> ext2_find_next_zero_bit must be also static if __swab32 is also static.
> 
> Warning:
> include/asm/bitops.h:369:22: warning: '__fswab32' is static but
> used in inline function 'ext2_find_next_zero_bit'
> which is not static [enabled by default]
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <monstr at monstr.eu>
> ---
>  arch/microblaze/include/asm/bitops.h |    3 ++-
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/bitops.h
> b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/bitops.h index e8c835f..eafa2b5 100644
> --- a/arch/microblaze/include/asm/bitops.h
> +++ b/arch/microblaze/include/asm/bitops.h
> @@ -319,7 +319,8 @@ extern __inline__ int ext2_test_bit(int nr, const
> volatile void * addr) #define ext2_find_first_zero_bit(addr, size) \
>  	ext2_find_next_zero_bit((addr), (size), 0)
> 
> -extern __inline__ unsigned long ext2_find_next_zero_bit(void *addr,
> unsigned long size, unsigned long offset) +static inline unsigned long
> ext2_find_next_zero_bit(void *addr,
> +				unsigned long size, unsigned long offset)
>  {
>  	unsigned long *p = ((unsigned long *) addr) + (offset >> 5);
>  	unsigned long result = offset & ~31UL;

I'd rather see it done the other way -- drop the inline and let compiler decide. 
What are the size penalties ?

Best regards,
Marek Vasut