On Thu, 25 Aug 2011, Hans Verkuil wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2011 12:52:11 Marek Szyprowski wrote: [snip] > > @@ -1110,6 +1110,8 @@ int vb2_dqbuf(struct vb2_queue *q, struct v4l2_buffer *b, bool nonblocking) > > } > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vb2_dqbuf); > > > > +static void __vb2_queue_cancel(struct vb2_queue *q); > > + > > Is it possible to move __vb2_queue_cancel forward instead of having to add a > forward declaration? In general you don't want forward declarations unless > you have some sort of circular dependency. IMHO, adding a forward declaration has the advantages of making the patch smaller and showing clearly, that the function has not changed, or making any changes directly visible. If such forward declarations should really be avoided, moving of affected functions could be done in a separate patch, clearly stating, that the function contents have not changed. Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
