From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix signal handler Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 01:47:45 -0500 Message-ID: <20100214064745.GC20630@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <4B684F5F.7020409@web.de> <20100202205849.GA14385@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4B71A2EE.8070708@web.de> <4B72E81B.3020900@web.de> <20100210173348.GA5091@coredump.intra.peff.net> <4B76A985.9070809@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Markus Elfring X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Feb 14 07:47:49 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NgYGi-0006Q2-Pw for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 07:47:49 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754703Ab0BNGro (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Feb 2010 01:47:44 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:52930 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753394Ab0BNGrn (ORCPT ); Sun, 14 Feb 2010 01:47:43 -0500 Received: (qmail 31200 invoked by uid 107); 14 Feb 2010 06:47:53 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Sun, 14 Feb 2010 01:47:53 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 14 Feb 2010 01:47:45 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B76A985.9070809@web.de> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 02:30:45PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote: > > Why does this need to become extern? > > How do you think about to stress the detail that the function > "log_show_early" is called by the function "limit_list" from an other > translation unit. Stress to whom? The keyword "extern" tells something to the linker, but the linker doesn't care (and in fact making it extern introduces cruft into the global namespace). If you want to tell the user, a comment would be appropriate, but I don't think it is necessary. It is not hard to see that the only use is assigning to an extern function pointer. > > Overall, this change looks sane to me. > > How are the chances to get the update suggestion into the public Git > repository? You would have a better chance if you followed the directions in SubmittingPatches, including sending it to the maintainer, including your patch inline, and wrapping your commit message. -Peff