From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932420AbWGIJLz (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jul 2006 05:11:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932312AbWGIJLz (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jul 2006 05:11:55 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:33180 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964982AbWGIJLy (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jul 2006 05:11:54 -0400 Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] make drivers/mtd/cmdlinepart.c:mtdpart_setup() static From: David Woodhouse To: Adrian Bunk Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, juha.yrjola@solidboot.com, jlavi@iki.fi In-Reply-To: <20060629173206.GF19712@stusta.de> References: <20060626220215.GI23314@stusta.de> <1151416141.17609.140.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <20060629173206.GF19712@stusta.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 10:12:12 +0100 Message-Id: <1152436332.25567.12.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.2 (2.6.2-1.fc5.6.dwmw2.1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 19:32 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 02:49:00PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 00:02 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > This patch makes the needlessly global mtdpart_setup() static. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk > > > > > > --- linux-2.6.17-mm2-full/drivers/mtd/cmdlinepart.c.old 2006-06-26 23:18:39.000000000 +0200 > > > +++ linux-2.6.17-mm2-full/drivers/mtd/cmdlinepart.c 2006-06-26 23:18:51.000000000 +0200 > > > @@ -346,7 +346,7 @@ > > > * > > > * This function needs to be visible for bootloaders. > > > */ > > > -int mtdpart_setup(char *s) > > > +static int mtdpart_setup(char *s) > > > > Patch lacks sufficient explanation. Explain the relevance of the comment > > immediately above the function declaration, in the context of your > > patch. Explain your decision to change the behaviour, but not change the > > comment itself. > > My explanation regarding the relevance of the comment is that it seems > to be nonsense. > > Do I miss something, or why and how should a bootloader access > in-kernel functions? I'm not entirely sure, but allegedly it does -- Juha, can you elaborate? -- dwmw2