From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Dmitry Torokhov" Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] m68k/mac: Make mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons() declaration visible Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:30:18 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20070720164043.523003359@mail.of.borg> <20070720164323.625963918@mail.of.borg> <20070720183503.GC3801@stusta.de> <20070720190726.GD3801@stusta.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070720190726.GD3801@stusta.de> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Andrew Morton , linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On 7/20/07, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 02:51:02PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On 7/20/07, Adrian Bunk wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 01:47:36PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >> > Hi Geert, > >> > > >> > On 7/20/07, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> >> From: Geert Uytterhoeven > >> >> > >> >> m68k/mac: Make mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons() declaration visible > >> >> > >> >> drivers/char/keyboard.c: In function 'kbd_keycode': > >> >> drivers/char/keyboard.c:1142: error: implicit declaration of function > >> >> 'mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons' > >> >> > >> >> The forward declaration of mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons() is not > >> visible > >> >> on > >> >> m68k because it's hidden in the middle of a big #ifdef block. > >> >> > >> >> Move it to , correct the type of the second parameter, and > >> >> include where needed. > >> > > >> > linux/hid.h contains definitions needed for drivers speaking HID > >> > protocol, I don't think we want to put quirks for legacy keyboard > >> > driver there. I'd just move the #ifdef within drivers/char/keyboard.c > >> > for now. > >> >... > >> > >> If you only move it you will keep the bug of the wrong second parameter. > >> > >> But if you move it to any header file gcc is able to figure out such > >> errors itself instead of them being nasty runtime errors. > >> > >> Such prototypes in C files are really bad since (like in this case) they > >> prevent the finding of bugs. It doesn't matter which header file you put > >> the prototype into (it can even be a new one), but it belongs into a > >> header file. > > > > I am OK with adding a new header file. I was just saying that placing > > that declaration in linux/hid.h makes about the same sense as putting > > it into linux/scsi.h > > scsi.h would also be fine with me. ;-) > > Are you making a patch or should I send one? [1] > If you send one I'll gladly take it ;) -- Dmitry