On 4 August 2016 at 02:30, Maxim Uvarov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 08/03/16 22:21, Anders Roxell wrote: > >> On 2 August 2016 at 17:27, Mike Holmes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 2 August 2016 at 04:44, Maxim Uvarov <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 08/02/16 10:54, Anders Roxell wrote: >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell <[email protected]> >>>>> --- >>>>> helper/hashtable.c | 6 +++--- >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/helper/hashtable.c b/helper/hashtable.c >>>>> index 8bb1ae5..f17b80f 100644 >>>>> --- a/helper/hashtable.c >>>>> +++ b/helper/hashtable.c >>>>> @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ odph_table_t odph_hash_table_lookup(const char >>>>> *name) >>>>> * This hash algorithm is the most simple one, so we choose it as an >>>>> DEMO >>>>> * User can use any other algorithm, like CRC... >>>>> */ >>>>> -uint16_t odp_key_hash(void *key, uint32_t key_size) >>>>> +static uint16_t odp_key_hash(void *key, uint32_t key_size) >>>>> >>>>> odph_ >>>> >>>> { >>>>> register uint32_t hash = 0; >>>>> uint32_t idx = (key_size == 0 ? 1 : key_size); >>>>> @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ uint16_t odp_key_hash(void *key, uint32_t key_size) >>>>> /** >>>>> * Get an available node from pool >>>>> */ >>>>> -odph_hash_node *odp_hashnode_take(odph_table_t table) >>>>> +static odph_hash_node *odp_hashnode_take(odph_table_t table) >>>>> { >>>>> odph_hash_table_imp *tbl = (odph_hash_table_imp *)table; >>>>> uint32_t idx; >>>>> @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ odph_hash_node *odp_hashnode_take(odph_table_t >>>>> table) >>>>> /** >>>>> * Release an node to the pool >>>>> */ >>>>> -void odp_hashnode_give(odph_table_t table, odph_hash_node *node) >>>>> +static void odp_hashnode_give(odph_table_t table, odph_hash_node >>>>> *node) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> odph_ >>>> >>> >>> Should this patch change the name as well ? >>> >> I would say no. =) >> >> The fix appears to be to correctly make internal functions static whist >>> converting to a naming scheme is a separate fix >>> >> agree. >> >> Cheers, >> Anders >> > > I don't mind if it will be 2 patches or 1 patch. If new issue was observed > during review it has to be fixed with the same patch set. > Or if you don't want/have time then you can file bug and we will take care > about how will fix it. > > I would like to see one single patch here because you should not fix > something partially and introduce patch lines with errors. If you > touched that line than in my opinion it's logical to fix problem correct > and completely. Problem from patch description is "to hide private > functions". > Some times I agree that makes sense, but it is better to make a bug for a second issue if a patch clearly fixes the issues it claims to, without a balance we won't make progress if every patch requires fixing other issues that are not directly implicated. > > regards, > Maxim, > > > >>> { >>>> >>>>> odph_hash_table_imp *tbl = (odph_hash_table_imp *)table; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Mike Holmes >>> Technical Manager - Linaro Networking Group >>> Linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/> *│ *Open source software for ARM >>> SoCs >>> "Work should be fun and collaborative, the rest follows" >>> >> > -- Mike Holmes Technical Manager - Linaro Networking Group Linaro.org <http://www.linaro.org/> *│ *Open source software for ARM SoCs "Work should be fun and collaborative, the rest follows"
