Re: [PATCH] trace.c: mark file-local function static
- From
Thiago Farina <tfransosi@gmail.com>
- Date
- Dec 21, 2010, 00:28 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTin2QuMF93RqrRcScxvkzhU4OFJ9Nt42tV+FOjxS@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <1292863989.19322.27.camel@drew-northup.unet.maine.edu>
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Drew Northup <drew.northup@maine.edu> wrote:
Show 38 quoted lines
>
> On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 13:17 -0200, Thiago Farina wrote:
>> 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?I don't think so, it's making the function private, because the function is used only in that file and as such if you see a function marked as static you know that and doesn't need further explanation in my pov (but it seems you don't think like that).
> Alas the best way to avoid such a situation is to explain why a change > was made to begin with. >
So, you are welcome to contribute and suggest such description for this trivial (that may break non-trivial things) patch. So we can please you and others in the future.
Thanks.