* Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > --- a/include/linux/ipc_namespace.h > +++ b/include/linux/ipc_namespace.h > @@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ static inline int mq_init_ns(struct ipc_namespace *ns) { return 0; } > > #if defined(CONFIG_IPC_NS) > extern void free_ipc_ns(struct ipc_namespace *ns); > +struct ipc_namespace *create_ipc_ns(void); > extern struct ipc_namespace *copy_ipcs(unsigned long flags, > struct ipc_namespace *ns); > extern void free_ipcs(struct ipc_namespace *ns, struct ipc_ids *ids, Hm, doesnt the existing, correct pattern strike your eyes out: extern foo1(); extern foo2(); extern foo3(); and then you add a new method in this inconsistent way: extern foo1(); foox(); extern foo2(); extern foo3(); Instead of continuing the existing pattern via: extern foo1(); extern foox(); extern foo2(); extern foo3(); ? I think we need a new checkpatch warning for such things. It might be a small detail in the big picture, but a thousand small details create a big mess easily so we have to try to get all the small details right, all the time - that is the only way to create a better kernel in the end. Thanks, Ingo _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers