Re: drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:51:17: sparse: symbol 'cpufreq_online_mask' was not declared. Should it be static?

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Friday, January 11, 2013 07:38:26 PM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 11 January 2013 19:33, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
> > FYI, there are new sparse warnings show up in
> >
> > tree:   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git linux-next
> > head:   f3bb59ab652c781155b1c5e42ef7e29bf936d86b
> > commit: 536ff06aba714c1d2d53cfca86b1a2e455842387 cpufreq: Don't use cpu removed during cpufreq_driver_unregister
> > date:   15 hours ago
> >
> > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:43:8: sparse: symbol 'cpufreq_cpu_data' was not declared. Should it be static?
> >    drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:46:8: sparse: symbol 'cpufreq_cpu_governor' was not declared. Should it be static?
> >>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:51:17: sparse: symbol 'cpufreq_online_mask' was not declared. Should it be static?
> >    drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:72:8: sparse: symbol 'cpufreq_policy_cpu' was not declared. Should it be static?
> >    drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c:73:8: sparse: symbol 'cpu_policy_rwsem' was not declared. Should it be static?
> >
> > Please consider folding the attached diff :-)
> 
> Thanks for the fix :)
> @Rafael: I hope you can apply that?

I could, but I prefer you to send me a fixed patch. :-)

Thanks,
Rafael


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.