From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: prasanna@in.ibm.com, ananth@in.ibm.com,
anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com, davem@davemloft.net,
tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] x86 kprobes_64.c: make 3 functions static
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 16:21:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071109152139.GF26163@stusta.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071109070609.3ff46629@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 07:06:09AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 07:03:26 +0100
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > This patch makes the following needlessly global functions static:
> > - kprobe_handler()
> > - trampoline_probe_handler()
> > - post_kprobe_handler()
> >
>
>
> while I appreciate your cleanups, I would like to ask you to be a bit
> careful with the x86/ ones; some of these are for now deliberate to
> make unification between the 32 and 64 ones possible.. eg we're working
> on getting the more cosmetic (and in this context, removing a static is
> more or less cosmetic) changes away so that "diff" shows us the *real*
> differences between the 32 and 64 bit versions... adding back in the
> static is the opposite direction ;)
>
> So.. if you find ones that are real for both 32 and 64 bit, by all
> means, but otherwise be a bit careful..
I tried to ensure that my cleanup patches do not make the 32 and 64 bit
versions more different.
And e.g. in this case the kprobe_handler() and post_kprobe_handler()
statifications remove the cosmetic difference of the 64bit ones not
being static. ;-)
Anyway, if any or all of my patches conflict with any other work simply
ignore them and I'll resend them after 2.6.25-rc1 (if they still both
apply and make sense).
> Greetings,
> Arjan van de Ven
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-09 15:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-09 6:03 [2.6 patch] x86 kprobes_64.c: make 3 functions static Adrian Bunk
2007-11-09 15:06 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-11-09 15:21 ` Adrian Bunk [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071109152139.GF26163@stusta.de \
--to=bunk@kernel.org \
--cc=ananth@in.ibm.com \
--cc=anil.s.keshavamurthy@intel.com \
--cc=arjan@infradead.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=prasanna@in.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.