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

[Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>]

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?

Miroslav