Re: [PATCH v3 13/15] unzstd: replace INIT{,DATA} and STATIC

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Jan,

On 15/04/2021 15:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.04.2021 16:30, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 15/04/2021 15:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 15.04.2021 16:22, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > On 15/04/2021 15:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 15.04.2021 13:59, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > > On 26/01/2021 09:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > With xen/common/decompress.h now agreeing in both build modes about
> > > > > > > what STATIC expands to, there's no need for this abstraction anymore.
> > > > > > Shouldn't you also mention "INIT" and "INITDATA" here?
> > > > > Two parts: INITDATA was mistakenly mentioned in the title. I've
> > > > > dropped that.
> > > > Ok.
> > > >
> > > > And what I'm saying about STATIC does not apply to
> > > > > INIT - for it, we replace the extra level of abstraction by
> > > > > directly using __init, just like was done in the earlier patches.
> > > > This should be mention in the commit message.
> > > It already is by what is being said after the comma. May I direct
> > > you back to the commit messages of earlier patches in this series
> > > (when talk was of just INIT)?
> >   From the way the commit message is written it sounds like more you are
> > referring to STATIC only. This is a clearer on the other commit messages
> > because there is no other way to interpret "this".
> If the commit message is taken together with the title, I think
> all is clear.
I have to admit, I view the commit title as a one line summary. So I 
often read them separately.
> > So I would suggest to clarify it.
> And I would like to avoid doing so. As a compromise, I'll change
> "this abstraction" to "these abstractions".
Sounds good to me.

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall