From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (nz-out-0506.google.com [64.233.162.231]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36553DDF0D for ; Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:51:04 +1000 (EST) Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id l1so850435nzf for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:51:02 -0400 From: "Dmitry Torokhov" To: "Adrian Bunk" Subject: Re: [patch 1/3] m68k/mac: Make mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons() declaration visible In-Reply-To: <20070720183503.GC3801@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed References: <20070720164043.523003359@mail.of.borg> <20070720164323.625963918@mail.of.borg> <20070720183503.GC3801@stusta.de> Cc: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Geert Uytterhoeven , 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 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 -- Dmitry