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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox