On 27.07.2023 21:35, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jul 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: >> 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. > > Understood :-) > > How would you like to proceed? > > 1. we commit this patch as is > 2. we wait for a third opinion from another maintainer > 3. we find a new name for the variable > 4. we change debug() instead
4 is planned already anyway; actually a patch doing that (and quite a few more things) was posted by Andrew a while back. We "just" need to settle on the few open items there. Jan
