Re: [PATCH] common/sched: Correct function prototypes

[Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>]

At 12:49 +0100 on 11 Oct (1381495754), Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 11.10.13 at 11:40, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org> wrote:
> > At 07:55 +0100 on 11 Oct (1381478143), Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 10.10.13 at 20:25, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On 10/10/2013 18:05, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> >> --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
> >> >> +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
> >> >> @@ -567,9 +567,9 @@ void sched_set_node_affinity(struct domain *, nodemask_t *);
> >> >>  int  sched_id(void);
> >> >>  void sched_tick_suspend(void);
> >> >>  void sched_tick_resume(void);
> >> >> -void vcpu_wake(struct vcpu *d);
> >> >> -void vcpu_sleep_nosync(struct vcpu *d);
> >> >> -void vcpu_sleep_sync(struct vcpu *d);
> >> >> +void vcpu_wake(struct vcpu *v);
> >> >> +void vcpu_sleep_nosync(struct vcpu *v);
> >> >> +void vcpu_sleep_sync(struct vcpu *v);
> >> 
> >> ... I'd much prefer if we stopped naming parameters in declarations
> >> where the parameter types are already sufficiently describing them.
> > 
> > I'd rather not -- I prefer the declarations to match the definitions.
> 
> Any specific reason for that?

Nothing very strong -- I just find it easier to read, and more
consistent (since we do need to keep the names of _some_ arguments).

I know there are lots of type-only declarations in the tree already, and
I'm not suggesting we get rid of them, but I wouldn't like to see it
become the prescribed coding style.

Cheers,

Tim.