[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1411231650580.2037@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 16:51:53 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
To: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Andreas Noever <andreas.noever@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: thunderbolt: Deletion of unnecessary checks before the function
call "ring_free"
On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/drivers/char/tpm/xen-tpmfront.c?id=fc14f9c1272f62c3e8d01300f52467c0d9af50f9#n268
> >
> > I think static functions can be named whatever
> > the developer chooses.
>
> I agree also that this implementation detail is correct in principle.
>
> Is a renaming of such identifiers feasible so that the probability of
> other name clashes can be reduced and corresponding static source
> code analysis might become a bit easier?
Why not just make the static source code analysis aware of the problem?
You can treat static functions differently that non-static ones. There is
no need to change the code.
julia
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists