On 25.07.2023 22:28, Nicola Vetrini wrote: > > > On 25/07/23 21:37, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 25.07.2023 11:17, Nicola Vetrini wrote: >>>> Rule 5.3 has the following headline: >>>> "An identifier declared in an inner scope shall not hide an >>>> identifier declared in an outer scope" >>>> >>>> To avoid any confusion resulting from the parameter 'debug' >>>> hiding the homonymous function declared at >>>> 'xen/arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h:428' >>>> the rename of parameters s/debug/lkdbg/ is performed. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Nicola Vetrini <[email protected]> >>>> --- >>>> Changes in v2: >>>> - s/dbg/lkdbg/ >>> >>> But only in some of the cases. E.g. ... >>> >>>> -static void check_barrier(union lock_debug *debug) >>>> +static void check_barrier(union lock_debug *dbg) >>> >>> ... not here (there are a few more). >> >> I agree with Jan: these are all union lock_debug parameters, so it would >> make sense to me to use lkdbg everywhere in this patch. > > Yes, indeed, that's unintentional. Can this be done on commit or should > I send a v3?
This wants to be a v3, but I'd suggest to wait a little with this until we've decided whether to go the alternative route and rename the entry point symbol that's colliding here. I would prefer this in general, but even more so if sooner or later we'd rename most of them anyway. Jan
