Re: [PATCH 11/15] Rename functions and make nonstatic as necessary

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 06/18/2014 03:09 PM, Gary Benson wrote:
> Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 06/18/2014 02:28 PM, Gary Benson wrote:
>>> Siva Chandra wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> This commit renames the functions that are to be shared.
>>>>> Functions to be shared that were static are made nonstatic.
>>>>
> 
>>>> I thinking making the functions nonstatic in this part was
>>>> not correct. The build currently fails when built with
>>>> "-Werror=missing-prototypes" as 14/15 has not yet been
>>>> committed.
>>>
>>> My apologies Siva.
>>>
>>> Pedro, should I commit the remaining piece now, and work on the
>>> i386_insert_hw_breakpoint as a separate patch?
>>
>> As you've committed the header patch already, I think the issue
>> is actually already fixed?
> 
> Ah, ok, I misunderstood.  I can stop rushing!
> 
> I actually wish I hadn't committed the header patch now, the
> i386_{insert,remove}_hw_breakpoint refactoring you spotted
> means those functions didn't need exposing at all.
> 
> I'm working on a patch to revert part of that change: remove the
> prototypes, make them static again, *and* rename the now static
> functions them back to their original names.  The last point isn't
> strictly necessary, but I don't like that the refactoring would
> have renamed some functions it didn't need to.  I want to put the
> old names back so that people familiar with that code don't see
> more disruption than strictly necessary.
> 
> I was going to mail it alone (I thought Siva was stuck) but since
> he's not I'll mail it as part of a three-patch series to complete
> the refactoring.

Sounds excellent.

Thanks,
-- 
Pedro Alves