* [PATCH] staging: cxt1e1: hwprobe: Fix sparse warning
@ 2014-03-18 22:33 Matei Oprea
2014-03-18 23:12 ` Greg KH
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Matei Oprea @ 2014-03-18 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gregkh
Cc: sachin.kamat, shaun, devel, linux-kernel, Matei Oprea,
ROSEdu Kernel Community
This fixes the following sparse warning:
* drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:43:19:
warning: symbol 'hdw_info' was not declared. Should it be static?
* drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:47:1:
warning: symbol 'show_two' was not declared. Should it be static?
* drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:99:1:
warning: symbol 'hdw_sn_get' was not declared. Should it be static?
*drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:149:1:
warning: symbol 'prep_hdw_info' was not declared. Should it be static?
* drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:169:1:
warning: symbol 'cleanup_ioremap' was not declared. Should it be static?
* drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:195:1:
warning: symbol 'cleanup_devs' was not declared. Should it be static?
drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:293:1:
* warning: symbol 'c4hw_attach_all' was not declared. Should it be static?
Signed-off-by: Matei Oprea <eu@opreamatei.ro>
Cc: ROSEdu Kernel Community <firefly@lists.rosedu.org>
---
drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c | 14 +++++++-------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c b/drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c
index 02b4f8f..694047a 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c
@@ -40,10 +40,10 @@ void c4_stopwd (ci_t *);
struct net_device * __init c4_add_dev (hdw_info_t *, int, unsigned long, unsigned long, int, int);
-struct s_hdw_info hdw_info[MAX_BOARDS];
+static struct s_hdw_info hdw_info[MAX_BOARDS];
-void __init
+static void __init
show_two (hdw_info_t *hi, int brdno)
{
ci_t *ci;
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ show_two (hdw_info_t *hi, int brdno)
}
-void __init
+static void __init
hdw_sn_get (hdw_info_t *hi, int brdno)
{
/* obtain hardware EEPROM information */
@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ hdw_sn_get (hdw_info_t *hi, int brdno)
}
-void __init
+static void __init
prep_hdw_info (void)
{
hdw_info_t *hi;
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ prep_hdw_info (void)
}
}
-void
+static void
cleanup_ioremap (void)
{
hdw_info_t *hi;
@@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ cleanup_ioremap (void)
}
-void
+static void
cleanup_devs (void)
{
hdw_info_t *hi;
@@ -289,7 +289,7 @@ c4_hdw_init (struct pci_dev *pdev, int found)
}
-status_t __init
+static status_t __init
c4hw_attach_all (void)
{
hdw_info_t *hi;
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] staging: cxt1e1: hwprobe: Fix sparse warning
2014-03-18 22:33 [PATCH] staging: cxt1e1: hwprobe: Fix sparse warning Matei Oprea
@ 2014-03-18 23:12 ` Greg KH
2014-03-19 5:43 ` [firefly] " Daniel Baluta
2014-03-18 23:12 ` Greg KH
2014-03-18 23:14 ` Greg KH
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2014-03-18 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matei Oprea
Cc: sachin.kamat, shaun, devel, linux-kernel, ROSEdu Kernel Community
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:33:19AM +0200, Matei Oprea wrote:
> This fixes the following sparse warning:
> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:43:19:
> warning: symbol 'hdw_info' was not declared. Should it be static?
> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:47:1:
> warning: symbol 'show_two' was not declared. Should it be static?
> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:99:1:
> warning: symbol 'hdw_sn_get' was not declared. Should it be static?
> *drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:149:1:
> warning: symbol 'prep_hdw_info' was not declared. Should it be static?
> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:169:1:
> warning: symbol 'cleanup_ioremap' was not declared. Should it be static?
> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:195:1:
> warning: symbol 'cleanup_devs' was not declared. Should it be static?
> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:293:1:
> * warning: symbol 'c4hw_attach_all' was not declared. Should it be static?
>
> Signed-off-by: Matei Oprea <eu@opreamatei.ro>
> Cc: ROSEdu Kernel Community <firefly@lists.rosedu.org>
Why the cc: for a non-maintainer / person?
curious,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] staging: cxt1e1: hwprobe: Fix sparse warning
2014-03-18 22:33 [PATCH] staging: cxt1e1: hwprobe: Fix sparse warning Matei Oprea
2014-03-18 23:12 ` Greg KH
@ 2014-03-18 23:12 ` Greg KH
2014-03-18 23:14 ` Greg KH
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2014-03-18 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matei Oprea
Cc: sachin.kamat, shaun, devel, linux-kernel, ROSEdu Kernel Community
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:33:19AM +0200, Matei Oprea wrote:
> This fixes the following sparse warning:
> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:43:19:
> warning: symbol 'hdw_info' was not declared. Should it be static?
> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:47:1:
> warning: symbol 'show_two' was not declared. Should it be static?
> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:99:1:
> warning: symbol 'hdw_sn_get' was not declared. Should it be static?
> *drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:149:1:
> warning: symbol 'prep_hdw_info' was not declared. Should it be static?
> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:169:1:
> warning: symbol 'cleanup_ioremap' was not declared. Should it be static?
> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:195:1:
> warning: symbol 'cleanup_devs' was not declared. Should it be static?
> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:293:1:
> * warning: symbol 'c4hw_attach_all' was not declared. Should it be static?
Please don't line-wrap sparse or compiler warnings, it just looks messy.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] staging: cxt1e1: hwprobe: Fix sparse warning
2014-03-18 22:33 [PATCH] staging: cxt1e1: hwprobe: Fix sparse warning Matei Oprea
2014-03-18 23:12 ` Greg KH
2014-03-18 23:12 ` Greg KH
@ 2014-03-18 23:14 ` Greg KH
2014-03-21 9:46 ` Matei Oprea
2 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2014-03-18 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matei Oprea
Cc: sachin.kamat, shaun, devel, linux-kernel, ROSEdu Kernel Community
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:33:19AM +0200, Matei Oprea wrote:
> This fixes the following sparse warning:
> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:43:19:
> warning: symbol 'hdw_info' was not declared. Should it be static?
> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:47:1:
> warning: symbol 'show_two' was not declared. Should it be static?
> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:99:1:
> warning: symbol 'hdw_sn_get' was not declared. Should it be static?
> *drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:149:1:
> warning: symbol 'prep_hdw_info' was not declared. Should it be static?
> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:169:1:
> warning: symbol 'cleanup_ioremap' was not declared. Should it be static?
> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:195:1:
> warning: symbol 'cleanup_devs' was not declared. Should it be static?
> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:293:1:
> * warning: symbol 'c4hw_attach_all' was not declared. Should it be static?
>
> Signed-off-by: Matei Oprea <eu@opreamatei.ro>
> Cc: ROSEdu Kernel Community <firefly@lists.rosedu.org>
> ---
> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c | 14 +++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c b/drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c
> index 02b4f8f..694047a 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c
> @@ -40,10 +40,10 @@ void c4_stopwd (ci_t *);
> struct net_device * __init c4_add_dev (hdw_info_t *, int, unsigned long, unsigned long, int, int);
>
>
> -struct s_hdw_info hdw_info[MAX_BOARDS];
> +static struct s_hdw_info hdw_info[MAX_BOARDS];
>
>
> -void __init
> +static void __init
> show_two (hdw_info_t *hi, int brdno)
> {
> ci_t *ci;
> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ show_two (hdw_info_t *hi, int brdno)
This patch doesn't apply at all, did you do it against my staging-next
branch of staging.git or linux-next? Or did you do it against Linus's
tree? If Linus's tree, that's quite "old" for development stuff, always
work against linux-next to avoid making the same changes others already
have in the past.
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [firefly] [PATCH] staging: cxt1e1: hwprobe: Fix sparse warning
2014-03-18 23:12 ` Greg KH
@ 2014-03-19 5:43 ` Daniel Baluta
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Baluta @ 2014-03-19 5:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Community @ ROSEdu
Cc: Matei Oprea, sachin.kamat, driverdev, shaun,
Linux Kernel Mailing List
>> Signed-off-by: Matei Oprea <eu@opreamatei.ro>
>> Cc: ROSEdu Kernel Community <firefly@lists.rosedu.org>
>
> Why the cc: for a non-maintainer / person?
We try to keep track of student's contributions in this way.
Also, patches are internally reviewed on this mailing list before
sending them to maintainers.
thanks,
Daniel.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] staging: cxt1e1: hwprobe: Fix sparse warning
2014-03-18 23:14 ` Greg KH
@ 2014-03-21 9:46 ` Matei Oprea
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Matei Oprea @ 2014-03-21 9:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg KH
Cc: sachin.kamat, Shaun Laing, driverdev, linux-kernel,
ROSEdu Kernel Community
I did it against your master branch of staging.git. I guess that's why
doesn't apply at all. I switched branches to staging-next after your
e-mail.
Thanks and sorry !
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:33:19AM +0200, Matei Oprea wrote:
>> This fixes the following sparse warning:
>> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:43:19:
>> warning: symbol 'hdw_info' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:47:1:
>> warning: symbol 'show_two' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:99:1:
>> warning: symbol 'hdw_sn_get' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> *drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:149:1:
>> warning: symbol 'prep_hdw_info' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:169:1:
>> warning: symbol 'cleanup_ioremap' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> * drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:195:1:
>> warning: symbol 'cleanup_devs' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c:293:1:
>> * warning: symbol 'c4hw_attach_all' was not declared. Should it be static?
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matei Oprea <eu@opreamatei.ro>
>> Cc: ROSEdu Kernel Community <firefly@lists.rosedu.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c | 14 +++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c b/drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c
>> index 02b4f8f..694047a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/cxt1e1/hwprobe.c
>> @@ -40,10 +40,10 @@ void c4_stopwd (ci_t *);
>> struct net_device * __init c4_add_dev (hdw_info_t *, int, unsigned long, unsigned long, int, int);
>>
>>
>> -struct s_hdw_info hdw_info[MAX_BOARDS];
>> +static struct s_hdw_info hdw_info[MAX_BOARDS];
>>
>>
>> -void __init
>> +static void __init
>> show_two (hdw_info_t *hi, int brdno)
>> {
>> ci_t *ci;
>> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ show_two (hdw_info_t *hi, int brdno)
>
>
> This patch doesn't apply at all, did you do it against my staging-next
> branch of staging.git or linux-next? Or did you do it against Linus's
> tree? If Linus's tree, that's quite "old" for development stuff, always
> work against linux-next to avoid making the same changes others already
> have in the past.
>
> greg k-h
--
Oprea Matei
ᐧ
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-03-21 9:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-03-18 22:33 [PATCH] staging: cxt1e1: hwprobe: Fix sparse warning Matei Oprea
2014-03-18 23:12 ` Greg KH
2014-03-19 5:43 ` [firefly] " Daniel Baluta
2014-03-18 23:12 ` Greg KH
2014-03-18 23:14 ` Greg KH
2014-03-21 9:46 ` Matei Oprea
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.