From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH] common/sched: Correct function prototypes Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:54:34 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20131011120656.GA90538@ocelot.phlegethon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VUdB0-00069t-I8 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 13:54:46 +0000 Received: by mail-pa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id bj1so4432936pad.35 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 06:54:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20131011120656.GA90538@ocelot.phlegethon.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Tim Deegan , Jan Beulich Cc: Andrew Cooper , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 11/10/2013 13:06, "Tim Deegan" wrote: >>>> ... 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. I agree with this. -- Keir