Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] grep.c: mark private file-scope symbols as static

From: Ramsay Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 21:43:16 +0100

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ramsay Jones <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
>> Heh, so I obviously didn't see this before sending the patch yesterday! :-D
>>
>> Yes, this solves the problem addressed by yesterday's patch, so please
>> ignore that. However, this tickles sparse to complain as well ... ;-)
>>
>> New patch on it's way.
> 
> Are you sure the patch you are responding to really "tickles
> sparse"?

Yes.

> You have another grep.c patch timestamped two minutes after the
> message I am responding to, and as far as I can see, it is a subset
> of the patch you are responding to with the message I am responding
> to.

Hmm, that sentence has too many twists for me! :-D

Let me see if I can clear up the misunderstanding:

    - the "patch from yesterday" (18-09-2021) fixed a complaint from
      sparse regarding symbol 'dump_grep_expression'. This was before
      I had seen this patch email, or the resulting commit 07a7d656.
      Since my "patch from yesterday" is a strict subset of your patch,
      then your patch also fixes the complaint from sparse regarding
      the 'dump_grep_expression' symbol.

    - this patch (commit 07a7d656) causes sparse to complain about the
      symbols 'grep_source_load' and 'grep_source_is_binary'. The new
      patch from me ("timestamped two minutes after ...") also titled
      "grep.c: Fix some sparse warnings" on 19-09-2012 at 7:04 PM, is
      *not* a subset of commit 07a7d656. This patch addresses the new
      sparse warnings regarding 'grep_source_load' and
      'grep_source_is_binary'.

Hopefully that addresses the confusion! ;-)

HTH

ATB,
Ramsay Jones