Re: [PATCH 08/21] gcc 4 fix

Finn Thain
2006-06-24T04:45:09Z

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Roman Zippel wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Al Viro wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 08:31:04PM +0200, zippel@linux-m68k.org wrote:
> > > Fixes a "static qualifier follows non-static qualifier" error from
> > > gcc 4.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>
> > > Signed-off-by: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
> >
> > Broken. Proper fix is to rename the function so that it wouldn't
> > clash.
>
> Well, I wouldn't call it broken, as both versions can never be compiled
> into the same kernel, but I don't care much how it's fixed.
>
> Does anyone know the relationship between via-pmu.c and via-pmu68k.c? If
> it's intended to keep the differences small, a rename would be the wrong
> fix.

The relationship is (and was) just that they share the pmu.h header file
declarations. In the patch in question I used the powerpc definition as
well.

The powerpc version exports pmu_queue_request (apparently for the use of
low_i2c.c). The m68k version doesn't, but if it needed to export it, I
don't see why it shouldn't implement the same "API"?

-f

> bye, Roman
>