From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/22] xen/arm: ITS: Port ITS driver to Xen Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:06:18 +0100 Message-ID: <1438185978.11600.217.camel@citrix.com> References: <1437995524-19772-1-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com> <1437995524-19772-6-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com> <55B7B1E4.1070207@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Vijay Kilari , Julien Grall Cc: Stefano Stabellini , Prasun Kapoor , manish.jaggi@caviumnetworks.com, Tim Deegan , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Stefano Stabellini , Vijaya Kumar K List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, 2015-07-29 at 20:52 +0530, Vijay Kilari wrote: > Hi Julien, > > Can you please explain what is the problem with making a function > non-static for compilation purpose and later make it static when used? It's noise in the series, which makes it harder to review and it is noise in the history which makes it hard to follow what happened. You should structure the series so that each patch individually makes sense and builds upon the previous patches. Introducing things only to remove them later, or making the non-static just to keep the compiler happy until they are used is a sign that your series is badly organised, which you should fix. > In anycase we are going to merge all the patches at once. I'm afraid that doesn't matter, each point in the series should standalone. http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Submitting_Xen_Patches#Making_good_patches covers some of this. Ian.