From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757896AbYEFHrj (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2008 03:47:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753791AbYEFHr1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2008 03:47:27 -0400 Received: from hellhawk.shadowen.org ([80.68.90.175]:2009 "EHLO hellhawk.shadowen.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753682AbYEFHr0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2008 03:47:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 08:46:55 +0100 From: Andy Whitcroft To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Andrew Morton , Adrian Bunk , mingo@elte.hu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, sam@ravnborg.org, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, hpa@zytor.com Subject: Re: [rfc] the kernel workflow & trivial "global -> static" patches (was: Re: [2.6 patch] make sched_feat_{names,open} static) Message-ID: <20080506074636.GA27480@shadowen.org> References: <20080505182942.GA17139@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080505201906.GA900@elte.hu> <20080505134252.c82a64f6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080505210712.GD1544@cs181133002.pp.htv.fi> <20080505142604.389f05c6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080505144625.2abc8e63@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080505144625.2abc8e63@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 02:46:25PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Mon, 5 May 2008 14:26:04 -0700 > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Actually, we could perhaps do a lot of this at the checkpatch level? > > If checkpatch sees a global symbol being added and the same patch > > does not add references to that symbol from a different file then > > whine. Obviously this will generate false positives but that's OK. > > or.. doesn't add it to a header file. That might be even more generic; > (and enforces a "all global functions need a prototype in a header > somewhere) That does sound possible. I am sure it will false positive quite a lot, but its probabally worth a stab. -apw