From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Kirsher Subject: Re: [PATCH] ixgbe: fix sparse warnings Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 17:30:44 -0800 Message-ID: <1423186244.2589.89.camel@jtkirshe-mobl> References: <1423146452-9379-1-git-send-email-prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-FnpGAGPnQXc4+J3GZEUF" Cc: Jesse Brandeburg , Bruce Allan , Carolyn Wyborny , Don Skidmore , Greg Rose , Matthew Vick , John Ronciak , Mitch Williams , Linux NICS , e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Lad Prabhakar Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1423146452-9379-1-git-send-email-prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org --=-FnpGAGPnQXc4+J3GZEUF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 14:27 +0000, Lad Prabhakar wrote: > From: "Lad, Prabhakar" >=20 > this patch fixes following sparse warnings: >=20 > ixgbe_x550.c:83:5: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_init_eeprom_params_X550' was > not declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:113:5: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_read_iosf_sb_reg_x550' was > not declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:161:5: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_read_ee_hostif_data_X550' > was not declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:196:5: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_read_ee_hostif_buffer_X550' > was not declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:334:5: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_calc_checksum_X550' was not > declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:410:5: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_calc_eeprom_checksum_X550' > was not declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:422:5: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_read_ee_hostif_X550' was > not declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:443:5: warning: symbol > 'ixgbe_validate_eeprom_checksum_X550' was not declared. Should it be > static? > ixgbe_x550.c:492:5: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_write_ee_hostif_data_X550' > was not declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:520:5: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_write_ee_hostif_X550' was > not declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:540:5: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_update_flash_X550' was not > declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:563:5: warning: symbol > 'ixgbe_update_eeprom_checksum_X550' was not declared. Should it be > static? > ixgbe_x550.c:603:5: warning: symbol > 'ixgbe_write_ee_hostif_buffer_X550' was not declared. Should it be > static? > ixgbe_x550.c:633:6: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_init_mac_link_ops_X550em' > was not declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:650:5: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_setup_sfp_modules_X550em' > was not declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:706:5: warning: symbol > 'ixgbe_get_link_capabilities_X550em' was not declared. Should it be > static? > ixgbe_x550.c:743:5: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_write_iosf_sb_reg_x550' was > not declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:907:5: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_setup_kx4_x550em' was not > declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:945:5: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_setup_kr_x550em' was not > declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:990:5: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_setup_internal_phy_x550em' > was not declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:1052:5: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_init_phy_ops_X550em' was > not declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:1105:23: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_get_media_type_X550em' > was not declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:1132:5: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_init_ext_t_x550em' was not > declared. Should it be static? > ixgbe_x550.c:1205:5: warning: symbol 'ixgbe_reset_hw_X550em' was not > declared. Should it be static? >=20 > Signed-off-by: Lad, Prabhakar > --- > Found this issue on linux-next (gcc version 4.9.2, > sparse version 0.4.5-rc1)and applies on top linux-next. >=20 > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbe/ixgbe_x550.c | 64 > ++++++++++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) Don Skidmore already has a patch to resolve these warnings in my queue. So I will be dropping this patch. --=-FnpGAGPnQXc4+J3GZEUF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABCgAGBQJU1BlEAAoJEOVv75VaS+3OpMEP/A4bclr/I2Htiu+XPRC8ywiD U64BGjReTK5JR8yhX9KqH3Bl3zlxMp6C/H9sXkfsiNRwR9c4jHaFAE05QxFGru2z AaA0xSWqQ7F2SJMRhmB3kGqj3DPIKYipHl2PyuIMV/Y3mZu9xf9OxudMoJIC2KH2 cpWJfUM2jGBYrQFedFIix8SsMUXjwT/ew8mOSnwnXETjvoaN5tP2x21ImveVV0d9 LcllEtaVUp+ZX02jKqZi+DXQQzETvtzHZ83g47okJWnTm42x9/UUZZQOBnzrTk8r dEKM6AhV9VtuOLGpt0+//FjvhHVNJ2U4xkGHh/TKj5xddLITZS8/kkD91dmyd9Kz P6IeTC7By8NC4vFyKUipvgo+yITbKxq/7XihfQ/CiBjKtx3ZxQ5BVBpsiuHbhihD LJOiTPpocG6gMrKNP3gEDCN713jB3qnBqBgoBt28LguRDSFljTNA9/8/xvRPf701 UV6fXO0Tc/1CO3sGBp6+fJTJCpsMFaKjHgDaYs85ke6CgS0C4TzWsWcavitax+rz XslH8Lv1Cr8IRN9ipfL0P0R6P0dug2W9clQloPalU8Pp7RAvRTDGYC3FcujYkQE8 7HFtMYlrh4qW3zyWT6KzJTyCflI/TVC7PD4c7IdYE0DuGPVXH4g6X3ey/4wUUtjd tH2t5FMozFfbq4bYMi6x =tX4a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-FnpGAGPnQXc4+J3GZEUF--