Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:48:23 +0200 | From | "Jesper Juhl" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/12] making the kernel -Wshadow clean - fix mconf |
| |
On 30/07/06, Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> wrote: > Jesper wrote: > > - cprint("%s", filename); > > + cprint("%s", config_filename); > > Something seems strange here to me. It looks like you are sometimes > resolving the shadowed symbols by making the more local symbol have the > longer name. > True.
> I'd have expected that the global symbol would be the one with the > longer, more elaborate name. > Generally I'd agree with you, but my initial objective is to resolve all (or at least most) of the clashes with as little pain as pssible initially so that we can get to the point where we can add -Wshadow to the Makefile - sometimes the path of least resistence is making the local name longer.
> In other words, I would have expected that we would avoid having global > names such as (from your other patches in this set): > > filename
Here I changed the global to be longer - config_filename.
> scroll
made the local longer - guilty as charged.
> instr
I don't recall using that variable name - I believe you mean 'intr' for interrupt that I used in place of 'irq'.
> up
I'd *love* to change this one - and down() as well - to up_sem() & down_sem(). But, making that change would be a pretty major and somewhat disruptive api change, so I opted instead to change the local variable names. I plan to introduce a sepperate patch set later on that adds up_sem()/down_sem() wrappers around up()/down(), deprecate the old names and add an entry to feature-removal.txt - but doing it now as part of the -Wshadow cleanup would be too much pain.
> sum > state > rep > complete > irq >
Yes, here I made the local name longer. Long term that should probably change. Short term it seemed the path of least resistance.
> Perhaps I am misreading this patch set? > i don't think you are. It's just that I want to take the least intrusive route *now*, make us -Wshadow clean, get -Wshadow to be an accepted part of the Makefile, *then* deal with the more intrusive/controversial renamings, where I guess you'd have done things in the opposite order - right?
-- Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |