>>> On 23.06.17 at 14:50, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 08/06/17 18:12, Wei Liu wrote: >> @@ -1081,8 +1081,8 @@ void do_int3(struct cpu_user_regs *regs) >> pv_inject_hw_exception(TRAP_int3, X86_EVENT_NO_EC); >> } >> >> -static void reserved_bit_page_fault( >> - unsigned long addr, struct cpu_user_regs *regs) >> +static void reserved_bit_page_fault(unsigned long addr, >> + struct cpu_user_regs *regs) > > Why are these prototypes changing? For this case, it doesn't matter, > but the former is necessary if any of them gain more parameters.
I think we should use consistent format, and while originally there may have been quite a few cases of what is being removed here, over time we've been switching towards what is being put in place here. I don't see why adding more parameters would be in conflict with this. If not even a single parameter declaration fits on a line, then imo this is a good suggestion that the function name is too long. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
