Re: [PATCH] trace.c: mark file-local function static

From: Drew Northup <drew.northup@maine.edu>
Date: Dec 20, 2010, 16:53 UTC
Message-ID: <1292863989.19322.27.camel@drew-northup.unet.maine.edu>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimkxJHvTAvra+B-0bAQopd8s21ZrFCPG_ALbZZ9@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 13:17 -0200, Thiago Farina wrote:

Show 30 quoted lines

> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Drew Northup <drew.northup@maine.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 21:43 -0200, Thiago Farina wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Vasyl' <vvavrychuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Signed-off-by: Vasyl' Vavrychuk <vvavrychuk@gmail.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  trace.c |    2 +-
> >> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/trace.c b/trace.c
> >> > index 1e560cb..62586fa 100644
> >> > --- a/trace.c
> >> > +++ b/trace.c
> >> > @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
> >> >  #include "cache.h"
> >> >  #include "quote.h"
> >> >
> >> > -void do_nothing(size_t unused)
> >> > +static void do_nothing(size_t unused)
> >> >  {
> >> >  }
> >> >
> >> If it means something, this looks sane to me.
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Thiago Farina <tfransosi@gmail.com>
> >
> > It may be sane, but why should we trust that it is without a commit
> > message?
> 
> Why such trivial thing needs further explanation?

Because even trivial fixes may break non-trivial things. In addition, without justification we'd just as soon have somebody come back with another patch six months down the road that changes it back to the original code. Now that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, now would it? Alas the best way to avoid such a situation is to explain why a change was made to begin with.

-- 
-Drew Northup N1XIM
   AKA RvnPhnx on OPN
________________________________________________
"As opposed to vegetable or mineral error?"
-John Pescatore, SANS NewsBites Vol. 12 Num. 59