On 2/15/23 21:00, Eric Blake wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 03:11:32PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> <signal.h> in POSIX reserves the "sa_" prefix: >> >> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/V2_chap02.html#tag_15_02_02 >> >> Let's use "sact_" instead. >> >> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> >> --- >> lib/internal.h | 4 ++-- >> generator/states-connect-socket-activation.c | 16 ++++++++-------- >> lib/handle.c | 12 ++++++------ >> 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> > > Stepping on reserved names is something that you can often get away > with (if you don't conflict now, how likely is it that libc will > actually introduce a future symbol that will conflict later?), so this > is change is more on the theoretical side. But I have no objections, > and as you proved, it's a very easy mechanical fix once we even bother > to identify that reserved name clashes could be a potential porting > issue. I've probably spent more time writing this email than you did > in creating the patch proper (if you exclude the subsequent time > testing that it builds and passes 'make check-valgrind'...)
I've actually reviewed (eyeballed) this patch myself *multiple times*, very carefully. Mechanical changes can be deceptive :) Implementing them seems easy, but their impact can be surprising. In fact, whenever I need to review such a patch for someone else, I tend to redo it myself from zero, then compare the patches (or the resultant trees). > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> > Thanks! Laszlo _______________________________________________ Libguestfs mailing list Libguestfs@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libguestfs
