Justin Frankel <justin@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > The only danger is that ll_merge()'s signature didn't change in such a > way to break compilation, i.e: > > int ll_merge(mmbuffer_t *result_buf, > const char *path, > mmfile_t *ancestor, const char *ancestor_label, > mmfile_t *ours, const char *our_label, > mmfile_t *theirs, const char *their_label, > int flag); > > becomes: > > int ll_merge(mmbuffer_t *result_buf, > const char *path, > mmfile_t *ancestor, const char *ancestor_label, > mmfile_t *ours, const char *our_label, > mmfile_t *theirs, const char *their_label, > struct whatever *conf); > > In this case, passing 0 as the last parameter will compile either way. > > Sure, we can grep all of the source, but who knows when something else > will get merged in... That is technically a valid concern but I suspect it does not matter in this particular case, where integer 0 used to mean "use the default" and the new API uses NULL to mean the same. If an existing call site used to pass 0 and the patch forgot to update it, it will look ugly (we encourage to spell a NULL pointer "NULL", not "0", in our codebase) but no harm is done. If an existing call site asked for a non-default behaviour by passing a non-zero integer flag, and the patch forgot to update it, the compiler would have caught it. Merging a side branch is the same deal; if it adds a call with a non-zero argument to ask for a non-default behaviour, that will be done via an expression over some integer variables or constants, and that won't be casted silently to a pointer to "struct whatever", no? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html