* [arm:for-next 4/4] arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c:324:13: error: static declaration of 'VFP_bounce' follows non-static declaration
@ 2023-08-14 21:06 kernel test robot
2023-08-14 22:08 ` Russell King (Oracle)
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: kernel test robot @ 2023-08-14 21:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Russell King (Oracle); +Cc: llvm, oe-kbuild-all, linux-arm-kernel
tree: git://git.armlinux.org.uk/~rmk/linux-arm.git for-next
head: f493fedcc3016e46ecbf7ab9490ba4762723efab
commit: f493fedcc3016e46ecbf7ab9490ba4762723efab [4/4] Merge branch 'devel-stable' into for-next
config: arm-milbeaut_m10v_defconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230815/202308150547.m54XHV12-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: clang version 16.0.4 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git ae42196bc493ffe877a7e3dff8be32035dea4d07)
reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230815/202308150547.m54XHV12-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202308150547.m54XHV12-lkp@intel.com/
All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>> arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c:324:13: error: static declaration of 'VFP_bounce' follows non-static declaration
static void VFP_bounce(u32 trigger, u32 fpexc, struct pt_regs *regs)
^
arch/arm/include/asm/vfp.h:105:6: note: previous declaration is here
void VFP_bounce(u32 trigger, u32 fpexc, struct pt_regs *regs);
^
1 error generated.
vim +/VFP_bounce +324 arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 320
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 321 /*
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 322 * Package up a bounce condition.
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 323 */
4708fb041346fa Ard Biesheuvel 2023-03-16 @324 static void VFP_bounce(u32 trigger, u32 fpexc, struct pt_regs *regs)
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 325 {
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 326 u32 fpscr, orig_fpscr, fpsid, exceptions;
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 327
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 328 pr_debug("VFP: bounce: trigger %08x fpexc %08x\n", trigger, fpexc);
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 329
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 330 /*
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 331 * At this point, FPEXC can have the following configuration:
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 332 *
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 333 * EX DEX IXE
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 334 * 0 1 x - synchronous exception
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 335 * 1 x 0 - asynchronous exception
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 336 * 1 x 1 - sychronous on VFP subarch 1 and asynchronous on later
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 337 * 0 0 1 - synchronous on VFP9 (non-standard subarch 1
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 338 * implementation), undefined otherwise
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 339 *
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 340 * Clear various bits and enable access to the VFP so we can
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 341 * handle the bounce.
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 342 */
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 343 fmxr(FPEXC, fpexc & ~(FPEXC_EX|FPEXC_DEX|FPEXC_FP2V|FPEXC_VV|FPEXC_TRAP_MASK));
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 344
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 345 fpsid = fmrx(FPSID);
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 346 orig_fpscr = fpscr = fmrx(FPSCR);
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 347
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 348 /*
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 349 * Check for the special VFP subarch 1 and FPSCR.IXE bit case
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 350 */
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 351 if ((fpsid & FPSID_ARCH_MASK) == (1 << FPSID_ARCH_BIT)
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 352 && (fpscr & FPSCR_IXE)) {
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 353 /*
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 354 * Synchronous exception, emulate the trigger instruction
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 355 */
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 356 goto emulate;
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 357 }
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 358
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 359 if (fpexc & FPEXC_EX) {
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 360 /*
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 361 * Asynchronous exception. The instruction is read from FPINST
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 362 * and the interrupted instruction has to be restarted.
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 363 */
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 364 trigger = fmrx(FPINST);
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 365 regs->ARM_pc -= 4;
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 366 } else if (!(fpexc & FPEXC_DEX)) {
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 367 /*
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 368 * Illegal combination of bits. It can be caused by an
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 369 * unallocated VFP instruction but with FPSCR.IXE set and not
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 370 * on VFP subarch 1.
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 371 */
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 372 vfp_raise_exceptions(VFP_EXCEPTION_ERROR, trigger, fpscr, regs);
4708fb041346fa Ard Biesheuvel 2023-03-16 373 return;
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 374 }
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 375
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 376 /*
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 377 * Modify fpscr to indicate the number of iterations remaining.
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 378 * If FPEXC.EX is 0, FPEXC.DEX is 1 and the FPEXC.VV bit indicates
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 379 * whether FPEXC.VECITR or FPSCR.LEN is used.
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 380 */
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 381 if (fpexc & (FPEXC_EX | FPEXC_VV)) {
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 382 u32 len;
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 383
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 384 len = fpexc + (1 << FPEXC_LENGTH_BIT);
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 385
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 386 fpscr &= ~FPSCR_LENGTH_MASK;
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 387 fpscr |= (len & FPEXC_LENGTH_MASK) << (FPSCR_LENGTH_BIT - FPEXC_LENGTH_BIT);
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 388 }
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 389
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 390 /*
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 391 * Handle the first FP instruction. We used to take note of the
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 392 * FPEXC bounce reason, but this appears to be unreliable.
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 393 * Emulate the bounced instruction instead.
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 394 */
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 395 exceptions = vfp_emulate_instruction(trigger, fpscr, regs);
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 396 if (exceptions)
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 397 vfp_raise_exceptions(exceptions, trigger, orig_fpscr, regs);
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 398
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 399 /*
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 400 * If there isn't a second FP instruction, exit now. Note that
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 401 * the FPEXC.FP2V bit is valid only if FPEXC.EX is 1.
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 402 */
5e4ba617c1b584 Russell King 2013-02-25 403 if ((fpexc & (FPEXC_EX | FPEXC_FP2V)) != (FPEXC_EX | FPEXC_FP2V))
4708fb041346fa Ard Biesheuvel 2023-03-16 404 return;
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 405
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 406 /*
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 407 * The barrier() here prevents fpinst2 being read
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 408 * before the condition above.
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 409 */
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 410 barrier();
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 411 trigger = fmrx(FPINST2);
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 412
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 413 emulate:
c98929c07a01c9 Catalin Marinas 2007-11-22 414 exceptions = vfp_emulate_instruction(trigger, orig_fpscr, regs);
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 415 if (exceptions)
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 416 vfp_raise_exceptions(exceptions, trigger, orig_fpscr, regs);
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 417 }
^1da177e4c3f41 Linus Torvalds 2005-04-16 418
:::::: The code at line 324 was first introduced by commit
:::::: 4708fb041346fa9cc6745dafb8c248a3e2f1075b ARM: vfp: Reimplement VFP exception entry in C code
:::::: TO: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
:::::: CC: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [arm:for-next 4/4] arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c:324:13: error: static declaration of 'VFP_bounce' follows non-static declaration
2023-08-14 21:06 [arm:for-next 4/4] arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c:324:13: error: static declaration of 'VFP_bounce' follows non-static declaration kernel test robot
@ 2023-08-14 22:08 ` Russell King (Oracle)
2023-08-14 22:15 ` Arnd Bergmann
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Russell King (Oracle) @ 2023-08-14 22:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann, Ard Biesheuvel, kernel test robot
Cc: llvm, oe-kbuild-all, linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 05:06:03AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> tree: git://git.armlinux.org.uk/~rmk/linux-arm.git for-next
> head: f493fedcc3016e46ecbf7ab9490ba4762723efab
> commit: f493fedcc3016e46ecbf7ab9490ba4762723efab [4/4] Merge branch 'devel-stable' into for-next
> config: arm-milbeaut_m10v_defconfig (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230815/202308150547.m54XHV12-lkp@intel.com/config)
> compiler: clang version 16.0.4 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git ae42196bc493ffe877a7e3dff8be32035dea4d07)
> reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230815/202308150547.m54XHV12-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
>
> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202308150547.m54XHV12-lkp@intel.com/
>
> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>
> >> arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c:324:13: error: static declaration of 'VFP_bounce' follows non-static declaration
> static void VFP_bounce(u32 trigger, u32 fpexc, struct pt_regs *regs)
> ^
> arch/arm/include/asm/vfp.h:105:6: note: previous declaration is here
> void VFP_bounce(u32 trigger, u32 fpexc, struct pt_regs *regs);
> ^
> 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?
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [arm:for-next 4/4] arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c:324:13: error: static declaration of 'VFP_bounce' follows non-static declaration
2023-08-14 22:08 ` Russell King (Oracle)
@ 2023-08-14 22:15 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-08-15 8:39 ` Ard Biesheuvel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Arnd Bergmann @ 2023-08-14 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Russell King, Ard Biesheuvel, kernel test robot
Cc: llvm, oe-kbuild-all, linux-arm-kernel
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.
Arnd
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [arm:for-next 4/4] arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c:324:13: error: static declaration of 'VFP_bounce' follows non-static declaration
2023-08-14 22:15 ` Arnd Bergmann
@ 2023-08-15 8:39 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-08-15 9:05 ` Russell King (Oracle)
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2023-08-15 8:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Russell King, kernel test robot, llvm, oe-kbuild-all,
linux-arm-kernel
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?
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [arm:for-next 4/4] arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c:324:13: error: static declaration of 'VFP_bounce' follows non-static declaration
2023-08-15 8:39 ` Ard Biesheuvel
@ 2023-08-15 9:05 ` Russell King (Oracle)
2023-08-15 16:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Russell King (Oracle) @ 2023-08-15 9:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ard Biesheuvel
Cc: Arnd Bergmann, kernel test robot, llvm, oe-kbuild-all,
linux-arm-kernel
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!
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [arm:for-next 4/4] arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c:324:13: error: static declaration of 'VFP_bounce' follows non-static declaration
2023-08-15 9:05 ` Russell King (Oracle)
@ 2023-08-15 16:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ard Biesheuvel @ 2023-08-15 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Russell King (Oracle)
Cc: Arnd Bergmann, kernel test robot, llvm, oe-kbuild-all,
linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 11:05, Russell King (Oracle)
<linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> 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
>
OK thanks for taking care of that.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-08-15 16:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-08-14 21:06 [arm:for-next 4/4] arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c:324:13: error: static declaration of 'VFP_bounce' follows non-static declaration kernel test robot
2023-08-14 22:08 ` Russell King (Oracle)
2023-08-14 22:15 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-08-15 8:39 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2023-08-15 9:05 ` Russell King (Oracle)
2023-08-15 16:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).