From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756924AbXGBUm2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2007 16:42:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754620AbXGBUmV (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2007 16:42:21 -0400 Received: from filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu ([130.245.126.2]:41710 "EHLO filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754353AbXGBUmU (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2007 16:42:20 -0400 Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 16:38:53 -0400 From: Josef Sipek To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Andrew Morton , ezk@cs.sunysb.edu, jsipek@cs.sunysb.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, unionfs@filesystems.org Subject: Re: [-mm patch] unionfs: make functions static Message-ID: <20070702203853.GA13904@filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> References: <20070628034321.38c9f12b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070701202330.GU10869@stusta.de> <20070702014249.GA14417@filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> <20070702022759.GE10869@stusta.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070702022759.GE10869@stusta.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 04:27:59AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 09:42:49PM -0400, Josef Sipek wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:23:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > This patch makes some needlessly global functions static. > > > > > ... > > > --- linux-2.6.22-rc6-mm1/fs/unionfs/lookup.c.old 2007-07-01 00:05:02.000000000 +0200 > > > +++ linux-2.6.22-rc6-mm1/fs/unionfs/lookup.c 2007-07-01 00:06:05.000000000 +0200 > > > @@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ > > > > > > #include "union.h" > > > > > > +static int realloc_dentry_private_data(struct dentry *dentry); > > > + > > > /* is the filename valid == !(whiteout for a file or opaque dir marker) */ > > > > I forget who said it, but someone wasn't very happy with prototypes like > > that in .c files. What's the prefered way - are they ok for static symbols? > > It might have even been me who said this - but about global functions. > > For global functions, prototypes in header files allow gcc to check > whether the prototype matches the actual function. With a prototype > in the C file of the caller that's not possible, and if they are > different it can result in nasty runtime errors. > > For static functions that's not an issue since gcc sees both the > prototype and the actual function. Ok, fair enough. Applied & pushed to korg tree. Thanks. Josef "Jeff" Sipek. -- Once you have their hardware. Never give it back. (The First Rule of Hardware Acquisition)