From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Markus Elfring Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix signal handler Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:30:45 +0100 Message-ID: <4B76A985.9070809@web.de> References: <4B684F5F.7020409@web.de> <20100202205849.GA14385@sigill.intra.peff.net> <4B71A2EE.8070708@web.de> <4B72E81B.3020900@web.de> <20100210173348.GA5091@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Feb 13 14:30:59 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NgI5I-0005Mk-Eo for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:30:56 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754641Ab0BMNat (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Feb 2010 08:30:49 -0500 Received: from fmmailgate03.web.de ([217.72.192.234]:37094 "EHLO fmmailgate03.web.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751861Ab0BMNat (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Feb 2010 08:30:49 -0500 Received: from smtp06.web.de (fmsmtp06.dlan.cinetic.de [172.20.5.172]) by fmmailgate03.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF8DB13DF8299; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:30:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.227.193.197] (helo=[192.168.1.202]) by smtp06.web.de with asmtp (WEB.DE 4.110 #314) id 1NgI59-00013S-00; Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:30:47 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; de; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091130 SUSE/3.0.0-1.1.1 Thunderbird/3.0 In-Reply-To: <20100210173348.GA5091@coredump.intra.peff.net> X-Sender: Markus.Elfring@web.de X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/cR9ki1G7DGL0KkvIf+of3O7xbKUbuGo5LF5Yp IT3aK7ATY47EGhzc6SK9lqt1dwxirnDDFVKm0AlHkJ/7G96nla KoNadgdaAadxI4IMervQ== Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: > > Why does this need to become extern? How do you think about to stress the detail that the function "log_show_early" is called by the function "limit_list" from an other translation unit. > > Overall, this change looks sane to me. How are the chances to get the update suggestion into the public Git repository? > You still haven't provided any evidence that this is a problem in practice, > but these changes are not particularly cumbersome, so it is probably better > to be on the safe side. > It is a matter of safety if all implementation details of the source code conform to well-known programming standards. Regards, Markus