From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Deegan Subject: Re: [PATCH] common/sched: Correct function prototypes Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:06:56 +0100 Message-ID: <20131011120656.GA90538@ocelot.phlegethon.org> References: <1381424754-7451-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <5257BD0F02000078000FA700@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20131011094046.GA88315@ocelot.phlegethon.org> <525801DA02000078000FA8B9@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VUbUl-0003xM-EH for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:07:05 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <525801DA02000078000FA8B9@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Andrew Cooper , Keir Fraser , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org At 12:49 +0100 on 11 Oct (1381495754), Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 11.10.13 at 11:40, Tim Deegan wrote: > > At 07:55 +0100 on 11 Oct (1381478143), Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> On 10.10.13 at 20:25, Keir Fraser wrote: > >> > On 10/10/2013 18:05, "Andrew Cooper" 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.