From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from hoboe2bl1.telenet-ops.be (hoboe2bl1.telenet-ops.be [195.130.137.73]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED65DDEBA for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:27:51 +1000 (EST) Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 10:27:47 +0200 (CEST) From: Geert Uytterhoeven Sender: geert@linux-m68k.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] m68k/mac: Make mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons() declaration visible In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20070720164043.523003359@mail.of.borg> <20070720164323.625963918@mail.of.borg> <20070720183503.GC3801@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Adrian Bunk , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, Andrew Morton List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On 7/20/07, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 01:47:36PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > 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 At first I just wanted to move it. Then I thought about the angry comments I would get about not moving it to a header file ;-) looked like the best candidate. is another option. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds