Re: [PATCH v3 12/15] unxz: replace INIT{,DATA} and STATIC

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

On 15/04/2021 15:28, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 15.04.2021 16:24, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 15/04/2021 15:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 15.04.2021 16:18, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > On 15/04/2021 15:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 15.04.2021 13:58, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > > On 26/01/2021 09:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > --- a/xen/common/decompress.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/xen/common/decompress.h
> > > > > > > @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@
> > > > > > >      
> > > > > > >      #define STATIC static
> > > > > > >      #define INIT __init
> > > > > > > -#define INITDATA __initdata
> > > > > > >      
> > > > > > >      #define malloc xmalloc_bytes
> > > > > > >      #define free xfree
> > > > > > > @@ -21,7 +20,6 @@
> > > > > > >      
> > > > > > >      #define STATIC static
> > > > > > >      #define INIT
> > > > > > > -#define INITDATA
> > > > > > Shouldn't the two changes be part of patch #14?
> > > > > One could do it that way, sure, but the last uses are gone here,
> > > > > and hence I wanted to get rid of this one item right away.
> > > > AFAICT, the same is true for STATIC and INIT. So it doesn't sense to not
> > > > be consistent in the way you treat them.
> > > No, further uses of STATIC and INIT get dropped by later patches.
> > I think you misundertood my comment. What I meant is you drop INIT in
> > patch #14 when the last caller was dropped in a previous patch.
> Now this and some other of your comments are getting really nitpicky.
You misundertood my question, so I was clarifying what I meant.

> The end result is the same. I can certainly move removals around
> further, but I think I ought to have some leeway on how exactly I
> achieve an identical end result. Things would be different, I agree,
> if the end result was not suitably consistent.
As I mentionned in patch #14, this is not very different from requesting 
to reshuffle the code. I find a bit surprising you are complaining about 
this...
I guess I could have add NIT in front to make clearer this was only a 
suggestion.
From your answer, I am assuming this is a no which is fair:

Acked-by: Julien Grall <jgrall@xxxxxxxxxx>

Cheers,

--
Julien Grall