[PATCH] vfio-ccw: make vfio_ccw_async_region_ops static

[PATCH] vfio-ccw: make vfio_ccw_async_region_ops static

[Vasily Gorbik]

Since vfio_ccw_async_region_ops is not exported and has no reason to be
globally visible make it static to avoid the following sparse warning:
drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c:73:30: warning: symbol 'vfio_ccw_async_region_ops' was not declared. Should it be static?

Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
---
 drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c
index 8c1d2357ef5b..7a838e3d7c0f 100644
--- a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c
+++ b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ static void vfio_ccw_async_region_release(struct vfio_ccw_private *private,
 
 }
 
-const struct vfio_ccw_regops vfio_ccw_async_region_ops = {
+static const struct vfio_ccw_regops vfio_ccw_async_region_ops = {
 	.read = vfio_ccw_async_region_read,
 	.write = vfio_ccw_async_region_write,
 	.release = vfio_ccw_async_region_release,
-- 
2.21.0

Re: [PATCH] vfio-ccw: make vfio_ccw_async_region_ops static

[Cornelia Huck]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 10:38:52 +0200
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> Since vfio_ccw_async_region_ops is not exported and has no reason to be
> globally visible make it static to avoid the following sparse warning:
> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c:73:30: warning: symbol 'vfio_ccw_async_region_ops' was not declared. Should it be static?

Fixes: d5afd5d135c8 ("vfio-ccw: add handling for async channel instructions")
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c
> index 8c1d2357ef5b..7a838e3d7c0f 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c
> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ static void vfio_ccw_async_region_release(struct vfio_ccw_private *private,
>  
>  }
>  
> -const struct vfio_ccw_regops vfio_ccw_async_region_ops = {
> +static const struct vfio_ccw_regops vfio_ccw_async_region_ops = {
>  	.read = vfio_ccw_async_region_read,
>  	.write = vfio_ccw_async_region_write,
>  	.release = vfio_ccw_async_region_release,

Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>

Should I queue this and send a pull request (currently, there's nothing
else pending), or do you want to apply this directly?

Re: [PATCH] vfio-ccw: make vfio_ccw_async_region_ops static

[Vasily Gorbik]

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 11:16:40AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 10:38:52 +0200
> Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > Since vfio_ccw_async_region_ops is not exported and has no reason to be
> > globally visible make it static to avoid the following sparse warning:
> > drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c:73:30: warning: symbol 'vfio_ccw_async_region_ops' was not declared. Should it be static?
> 
> Fixes: d5afd5d135c8 ("vfio-ccw: add handling for async channel instructions")
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c
> > index 8c1d2357ef5b..7a838e3d7c0f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c
> > +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_async.c
> > @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ static void vfio_ccw_async_region_release(struct vfio_ccw_private *private,
> >  
> >  }
> >  
> > -const struct vfio_ccw_regops vfio_ccw_async_region_ops = {
> > +static const struct vfio_ccw_regops vfio_ccw_async_region_ops = {
> >  	.read = vfio_ccw_async_region_read,
> >  	.write = vfio_ccw_async_region_write,
> >  	.release = vfio_ccw_async_region_release,
> 
> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> 
> Should I queue this and send a pull request (currently, there's nothing
> else pending), or do you want to apply this directly?

Then I'll just take it directly to avoid pull request overhead,
thanks!