Re: [RFC PATCH 6/9] livepatch: create per-task consistency model

From: Miroslav Benes
Date: Wed Feb 18 2015 - 07:43:04 EST

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 04:48:39PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 03:19:10PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > > > and externs for functions are redundant.
> > >
> > > I agree, but it seems to be the norm in Linux. I have no idea why. I'm
> > > just following the existing convention.
> >
> > Yes, I know. It seems that each author does it differently. You can find
> > both forms even in one header file in the kernel. There is no functional
> > difference AFAIK (it is not the case for variables of course). So as long
> > as we are consistent I do not care. And since we have externs already in
> > livepatch.h... you can scratch this remark if you want to :)
> Ok. If there are no objections, let's stick with our existing
> nonsensical convention for now :-)

So I was thinking about it again and we should not use bad patterns in our
code from the beginning. Externs do not make sense so let's get rid of
them everywhere (i.e. in the consistency model and also in livepatch.h).

The C specification talks about extern in context of internal and external
linkages or in context of inline functions but it does not make any sense
to me. Could you look at the specification and tell me if it makes any
sense to you, please?

Jiri, Vojtech, do you have any opinion about this?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at