Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] common/sched: Correct function prototypes

[George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 12:49 +0100 on 11 Oct (1381495754), Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 11.10.13 at 11:40, Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > At 07:55 +0100 on 11 Oct (1381478143), Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 10.10.13 at 20:25, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On 10/10/2013 18:05, "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h
>> >> >> +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h
>> >> >> @@ -567,9 +567,9 @@ void sched_set_node_affinity(struct domain *, 
>> >> >> nodemask_t *);
>> >> >>  int  sched_id(void);
>> >> >>  void sched_tick_suspend(void);
>> >> >>  void sched_tick_resume(void);
>> >> >> -void vcpu_wake(struct vcpu *d);
>> >> >> -void vcpu_sleep_nosync(struct vcpu *d);
>> >> >> -void vcpu_sleep_sync(struct vcpu *d);
>> >> >> +void vcpu_wake(struct vcpu *v);
>> >> >> +void vcpu_sleep_nosync(struct vcpu *v);
>> >> >> +void vcpu_sleep_sync(struct vcpu *v);
>> >>
>> >> ... I'd much prefer if we stopped naming parameters in declarations
>> >> where the parameter types are already sufficiently describing them.
>> >
>> > I'd rather not -- I prefer the declarations to match the definitions.
>>
>> Any specific reason for that?
>
> Nothing very strong -- I just find it easier to read, and more
> consistent (since we do need to keep the names of _some_ arguments).
>
> I know there are lots of type-only declarations in the tree already, and
> I'm not suggesting we get rid of them, but I wouldn't like to see it
> become the prescribed coding style.

+1

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel