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

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 27.07.2023 21:35, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> 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

4 is planned already anyway; actually a patch doing that (and quite a
few more things) was posted by Andrew a while back. We "just" need to
settle on the few open items there.

Jan