From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8061F4B4 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 02:47:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731001AbgJICrj (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2020 22:47:39 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:57940 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726547AbgJICrj (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2020 22:47:39 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31F228BB78; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 22:47:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=eKX3tOEETkS/36OiiQReZ3LqOPs=; b=qDTdYE m5HwQKXReBZ9j/O3cFTe8oMtb5j0k3IDUFX7pAF2O1xIhmR8jiOFdOsfUmEqxJdK Ej7RiF18JL+9T7YSBgRkBEnRa75rYH+zivaLm/chksWA7k67+n8bCxjvXnEJOfjd dx10mw9O6iAIHso6c8iwxJsa8YGFAdX5hK8Xk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=gJLJIKiBgHFo3M+B4FZwWXNsU4Ciw8yv Y0FM9ImVFyQCJQcm2GJcLapmb+JdY3UeEqUEVdpKg/vGvtEY619wCkgb/8GOgGr6 h4pRb/ObtUNMecYOdXlS5EDbIHAiU19SQN+G4Z9S0hYxM283qtidFMJw28S2e9no pTRjr0bzDiM= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2139F8BB77; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 22:47:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 967BB8BB76; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 22:47:36 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Denton Liu Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] clean up extern decl of functions References: <20201009015505.GB1314@generichostname> Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 19:47:36 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20201009015505.GB1314@generichostname> (Denton Liu's message of "Thu, 8 Oct 2020 18:55:05 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C9FDA342-09D9-11EB-B7C2-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Denton Liu writes: > Hi Junio, > > On Thu, Oct 08, 2020 at 08:27:55AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Among external function declarations, somehow only these two >> functions that return pointer-to-function were declared with >> "extern" in front. >> >> Ideally, we should standardise to _have_ explicit "extern" in front >> for all function (and data) decls, but let's make things uniform >> first. Bulk re-addition of extern can be done without any extra >> difficulty with or without this change. > > Why are we re-introducing an explicit "extern"? Since function decls are > extern by default, what do we gain by doing this? > > You mentioned in the past[0] > > I think there is a push to drop the "extern " from decls of > functions in *.h header files. > > so are we reversing that push now? That is certainly on the table. Re-read what you quoted and realize that I was not expressing my opinion on the "push"; it was just stating that other reviewers seem to be in favor. See my other response why I think the "push" was a bad idea.