Re: [PATCH v3 12/15] unxz: replace INIT{,DATA} and STATIC

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 15.04.2021 16:24, Julien Grall wrote:
> 
> 
> On 15/04/2021 15:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 15.04.2021 16:18, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15/04/2021 15:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 15.04.2021 13:58, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>>> On 26/01/2021 09:52, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> --- a/xen/common/decompress.h
>>>>>> +++ b/xen/common/decompress.h
>>>>>> @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>     #define STATIC static
>>>>>>     #define INIT __init
>>>>>> -#define INITDATA __initdata
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>     #define malloc xmalloc_bytes
>>>>>>     #define free xfree
>>>>>> @@ -21,7 +20,6 @@
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>     #define STATIC static
>>>>>>     #define INIT
>>>>>> -#define INITDATA
>>>>>
>>>>> Shouldn't the two changes be part of patch #14?
>>>>
>>>> One could do it that way, sure, but the last uses are gone here,
>>>> and hence I wanted to get rid of this one item right away.
>>>
>>> AFAICT, the same is true for STATIC and INIT. So it doesn't sense to not
>>> be consistent in the way you treat them.
>>
>> No, further uses of STATIC and INIT get dropped by later patches.
> 
> I think you misundertood my comment. What I meant is you drop INIT in 
> patch #14 when the last caller was dropped in a previous patch.

Now this and some other of your comments are getting really nitpicky.
The end result is the same. I can certainly move removals around
further, but I think I ought to have some leeway on how exactly I
achieve an identical end result. Things would be different, I agree,
if the end result was not suitably consistent.

Jan