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

[Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat dot com>]

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.

Thanks,
Gary

-- 
http://gbenson.net/