On Sun, 23 Nov 2014, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/drivers/char/tpm/xen-tpmfront.c?id=fc14f9c1272f62c3e8d01300f52467c0d9af50f9#n268 > > > > I think static functions can be named whatever > > the developer chooses. > > I agree also that this implementation detail is correct in principle. > > Is a renaming of such identifiers feasible so that the probability of > other name clashes can be reduced and corresponding static source > code analysis might become a bit easier? Why not just make the static source code analysis aware of the problem? You can treat static functions differently that non-static ones. There is no need to change the code. julia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
