[PATCH v1 1/1] efi_loader: Mark a function static

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 08:18:40AM -0600, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 09:26:14AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 07:03:24AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > Am 22. Oktober 2024 15:18:45 MESZ schrieb Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko at linux.intel.com>:
> > > >On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 08:02:46AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > >> On 10/21/24 16:40, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > > >> > On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 at 17:06, Andy Shevchenko
> > > >> > <andriy.shevchenko at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > >> > > 
> > > >> > > efi_bootmgr_release_uridp_resource() is not used anywhere except
> > > >> > > the same file where it is defined. Mark it static.
> > > >> > > This helps avoiding the compiler warning:
> > > >> > > 
> > > >> > >    lib/efi_loader/efi_bootmgr.c:388:14: warning: no previous prototype for ‘efi_bootmgr_release_uridp_resource’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> > > >
> > > >> The function is called efi_bootmgr_release_uridp() since 292a4a4c7b77
> > > >> ("efi_loader: shorten efi_bootmgr_release_uridp_resource()").
> > > >
> > > >Thanks! The problem is that U-Boot doesn't have the latest tag (yet)
> > > >that includes this change. You can help with managing the conflict.
> > > 
> > > Patches should be based on origin/master (or origin/next once that branch is
> > > opened typically after -rc2) and not on tags.
> > 
> > I disagree. The problem with moving target that it's been moving...
> > 
> > The tags are very good to follow and easy to maintain and test and report
> > regressions against. What you are suggesting it's like virtually assigning
> > tag to very each commit and tell maintainer to cope with this chaos when
> > one does something in one "tag" out of 100500 ones and another person in
> > another "tag". So, consider tags as stabilisation points, or points of
> > stability. Then it's much easier to stick with a few tags that with 100500
> > commits.
> 
> This isn't the linux kernel where there's constant churn. Most of the
> time, it doesn't matter at all. Sometimes it does. Then it's a question
> of if the custodian wants to do the rebase work themselves, or ask the
> submitter to. And since again unlike the kernel almost no one has the
> primary job of "work on U-Boot", the threshold for fixup or ask for a
> rebase is much lower.

I see your point, thanks for elaboration. Although I think even taking it
into account the Linux kernel approach makes some process, which is stable
(more or less) and understandable by many. I feel uncomfortable to rebase
on top of random commit. I also have scripts to update my branches and
the proposed approach breaks this badly. So I prefer to stick with my flow.
That said, consider the patch as reported problem by me. I will help testing
any new tag that will have a respective fix, or fix separately based on the tag,
so I won't need a special commits on top of.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko