From: Thiago Farina Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 00:28:41 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] trace.c: mark file-local function static Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <1292863989.19322.27.camel@drew-northup.unet.maine.edu> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Drew Northup wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 13:17 -0200, Thiago Farina wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Drew Northup wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 21:43 -0200, Thiago Farina wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Vasyl' wrote: >> >> > Signed-off-by: Vasyl' Vavrychuk >> >> > --- >> >> >  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 >> > >> > 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.