On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Bjorn, > > I just noticed this commit (f39d5b72913e "PCI: Remove "extern" from > function declarations") in the pci next branch. Just wondering why you > would do such a thing. It is a lot of churn in quite a few header files > and (in my opinion) goes the wrong way anyway. > > It may not actually make any difference to the compiler for functions, but > for variables, it does. A variable declared in a header file without > "extern" will effectively define it in every compilation that includes > the header file, one with "extern" will only produce references. > > So, since, the global variables really should have the "extern", the > functions are now inconsistent with that. > > It also means that when someone copies a function declaration to make a > "static inline" stub, the "extern" is a big hint for them to remember to > make the stub "static" - I have seen several occasions when this was not > done and that causes compilation failures (but usually only in the > configuration that the author did not bother to test). Good points. The fact that some function declarations use "extern" and some don't is just an annoying inconsistency. I prefer fewer words to read, so I removed them, but that's just a personal preference, and I'd be OK it were always present, too. I suppose if anybody but me actually cared very much, we'd have checkpatch complain about one way or the other, but I don't think it does. Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
