On 26.07.2023 23:49, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jul 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 26.07.2023 08:42, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>> On 26/07/23 08:34, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 25.07.2023 22:45, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>>> Rule 5.3 has the following headline: >>>>> "An identifier declared in an inner scope shall not hide an >>>>> identifier declared in an outer scope" >>>>> >>>>> To avoid any confusion resulting from the parameter 'debug' >>>>> hiding the homonymous function declared at >>>>> 'xen/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h:428' >>>>> the rename of parameters s/debug/lkdbg/ is performed. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <[email protected]> >>>>> --- >>>>> Changes in v2: >>>>> - s/dbg/lkdbg/ >>>>> Changes in v3: >>>>> - Added missing renames for consistency >>>> >>>> Hmm, you asked whether to send v3, but then you didn't wait for an >>>> answer. So to repeat what I said there: I'd prefer if we could first >>>> settle whether to rename the conflicting x86 symbol. >>>> >>> >>> Stefano replied asking for a v3 [1] before I had a chance to read your >>> message this morning. >> >> Right, sorry, I spotted his reply only after seeing the v3. > > For what is worth I prefer the current implementation compared to > renaming debug()
I don't. My replacement name suggestions were only "just in case"; I don't really like them. Jan
