Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] block/block-copy: move block_copy_task_create down
On 28.04.20 11:17, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > 28.04.2020 12:06, Max Reitz wrote: >> On 25.03.20 14:46, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: >>> Simple movement without any change. It's needed for the following >>> patch, as this function will need to use some staff which is currently >> >> *stuff >> >>> below it. >> >> Wouldn’t it be simpler to just declare block_copy_task_entry()? >> > > I just think, that it's good to keep native order of functions and avoid > extra declarations. Still, may be I care too much. No actual difference, > if you prefer declaration, I can drop this patch. Personally, the native order doesn’t do me any good (cscope doesn’t really care where the definition is), and also having functions in order seems just like a C artifact. I just prefer declarations because otherwise we end up moving functions all the time with no real benefit. Furthermore, moving functions has the drawback of polluting git blame. Max signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] block/block-copy: move block_copy_task_create down
28.04.2020 12:06, Max Reitz wrote: On 25.03.20 14:46, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: Simple movement without any change. It's needed for the following patch, as this function will need to use some staff which is currently *stuff below it. Wouldn’t it be simpler to just declare block_copy_task_entry()? I just think, that it's good to keep native order of functions and avoid extra declarations. Still, may be I care too much. No actual difference, if you prefer declaration, I can drop this patch. Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy --- block/block-copy.c | 66 +++--- 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) -- Best regards, Vladimir
Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] block/block-copy: move block_copy_task_create down
On 25.03.20 14:46, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote: > Simple movement without any change. It's needed for the following > patch, as this function will need to use some staff which is currently *stuff > below it. Wouldn’t it be simpler to just declare block_copy_task_entry()? Max > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy > --- > block/block-copy.c | 66 +++--- > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
