From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751008AbcJGEEy (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 7 Oct 2016 00:04:54 -0400
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:48095 "EHLO
        mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750698AbcJGEEs (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 7 Oct 2016 00:04:48 -0400
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 05:55:32 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Samuele Baisi <ciccio87@gmail.com>
Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: lustre: lprocfs_status.h: fix sparse error:
 symbol redeclared with different type
Message-ID: <20161007035532.GC16832@kroah.com>
References: <20161006165207.30061-1-ciccio87@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161006165207.30061-1-ciccio87@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.0 (2016-08-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:52:07PM +0200, Samuele Baisi wrote:
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c:1554:5: error:
> symbol 'lprocfs_wr_root_squash' redeclared with different type (originally
> declared at drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/../include/lprocfs_status.h:704)
> - incompatible argument 1 (different address spaces)
> 
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lprocfs_status.c:1618:5: error:
> symbol 'lprocfs_wr_nosquash_nids' redeclared with different type (originally
> declared at drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/../include/lprocfs_status.h:706)
> - incompatible argument 1 (different address spaces)
> 
> Added __user annotation to the header definitions arguments (which are
> indeed userspace buffers).

Are they really?  Have you tested this?  The last time this was looked
at, it was a non-trivial problem...

And any reason you didn't cc the lustre maintainers with this change?
If you think it is correct, please resend it with the testing
information and cc: them.

thanks,

greg k-h