Re: [XEN PATCH v3] xen/spinlock: mechanically rename parameter name 'debug'

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 26.07.2023 23:49, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Jul 2023, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 26.07.2023 08:42, Nicola Vetrini wrote:
> >>> On 26/07/23 08:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>> On 25.07.2023 22:45, 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 <nicola.vetrini@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> Changes in v2:
> >>>>> - s/dbg/lkdbg/
> >>>>> Changes in v3:
> >>>>> - Added missing renames for consistency
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmm, you asked whether to send v3, but then you didn't wait for an
> >>>> answer. So to repeat what I said there: I'd prefer if we could first
> >>>> settle whether to rename the conflicting x86 symbol.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Stefano replied asking for a v3 [1] before I had a chance to read your 
> >>> message this morning.
> >>
> >> Right, sorry, I spotted his reply only after seeing the v3.
> > 
> > For what is worth I prefer the current implementation compared to
> > renaming debug()
> 
> I don't. My replacement name suggestions were only "just in case"; I
> don't really like them.

Understood :-)

How would you like to proceed?

1. we commit this patch as is
2. we wait for a third opinion from another maintainer
3. we find a new name for the variable
4. we change debug() instead

?