Re: [arm:for-next 4/4] arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c:324:13: error: static declaration of 'VFP_bounce' follows non-static declaration

["Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>]

On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 10:39:31AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 00:16, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023, at 00:08, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 05:06:03AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > >>    1 error generated.
> > >
> > > I'm guessing this is a conflict between Arnd's patch
> > >
> > > ae1f8d793a19 ("ARM: 9304/1: add prototype for function called only from asm")
> > >
> > > merged in v6.5-rc1 and Ard's patch, and that part of Arnd's patch
> > > needs to be reverted since VFP_bounce is now static. Agreed?
> >
> > Yes, with Ard's change, the prototype I added is neither required nor correct.
> >
> > My series contained another patch that added a prototype for
> > vfp_entry(), and this is also obsoleted by Ard's series, but you
> > did not merge it anyway, so it's all good on that one.
> >
> 
> When you sent out that series, I mentioned the conflict with
> vfp_entry() [13/16], but I failed to spot that the same series had
> another patch that added the VFP_bounce() declaration, which is the
> one that is now conflicting.
> 
> So we just need a patch that drops the VFP_bounce() declaration,
> right? Should I send that out and drop it into the patch system?

http://git.armlinux.org.uk/cgit/linux-arm.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=a6f307c20d649e5f1da280bee7ed160de74de2ff

Thanks.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!