Re: [lxc-devel] [PATCH 1/2] init: unnest interrupt_handler

2013-04-17 Thread Serge Hallyn
Quoting Richard Weinberger (rich...@nod.at): > Am 17.04.2013 14:55, schrieb Serge Hallyn: > >Quoting Richard Weinberger (rich...@nod.at): > >>There is no need to use nested functions voodoo. > > > >I see no downside to this, but what is the upside? > > There is absolute no reason to use a GNU C ex

Re: [lxc-devel] [PATCH 1/2] init: unnest interrupt_handler

2013-04-17 Thread Richard Weinberger
Am 17.04.2013 14:55, schrieb Serge Hallyn: > Quoting Richard Weinberger (rich...@nod.at): >> There is no need to use nested functions voodoo. > > I see no downside to this, but what is the upside? There is absolute no reason to use a GNU C extension here which makes the code incompatible to other

[lxc-devel] [PATCH 1/2] init: unnest interrupt_handler

2013-04-17 Thread Richard Weinberger
There is no need to use nested functions voodoo. Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger --- src/lxc/lxc_init.c | 13 ++--- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/lxc/lxc_init.c b/src/lxc/lxc_init.c index c83c2f1..e4c9a32 100644 --- a/src/lxc/lxc_init.c +++ b/src/lxc

Re: [lxc-devel] [PATCH 1/2] init: unnest interrupt_handler

2013-04-17 Thread Serge Hallyn
Quoting Richard Weinberger (rich...@nod.at): > There is no need to use nested functions voodoo. I see no downside to this, but what is the upside? > Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger > --- > src/lxc/lxc_init.c | 13 ++--- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git