From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: [PATCH 27/43] drivers/net/sfc: fix sparse warnings: Should it be static? Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 00:37:19 +0000 Message-ID: <20090216003718.GN15266@solarflare.com> References: <20090214210940.23489.95001.stgit@vmbox.hanneseder.net> <20090214214111.24377.87888.stgit@vmbox.hanneseder.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Hannes Eder Return-path: Received: from smarthost03.mail.zen.net.uk ([212.23.3.142]:45628 "EHLO smarthost03.mail.zen.net.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753550AbZBPAha (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:37:30 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090214214111.24377.87888.stgit@vmbox.hanneseder.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hannes Eder wrote: > Impact: Include header file and include the function under the same > condition as in the header file. If CONFIG_SFS_MTD is not defined > than the functions 'efx_mtd_remove' and 'efx_mtd_rename' are defined > 'static inline' with an empty function body in the header file. > > Fix this sparse warnings: > drivers/net/sfc/mtd.c:204:6: warning: symbol 'efx_mtd_remove' was not declared. Should it be static? > drivers/net/sfc/mtd.c:221:6: warning: symbol 'efx_mtd_rename' was not declared. Should it be static? > drivers/net/sfc/mtd.c:230:5: warning: symbol 'efx_mtd_probe' was not declared. Should it be static? > > Signed-off-by: Hannes Eder > --- > drivers/net/sfc/mtd.c | 3 +++ > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/mtd.c b/drivers/net/sfc/mtd.c > index 665cafb..94c9ed8 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/sfc/mtd.c > +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/mtd.c > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ > #define EFX_DRIVER_NAME "sfc_mtd" > #include "net_driver.h" > #include "spi.h" > +#include "efx.h" > > #define EFX_SPI_VERIFY_BUF_LEN 16 > OK, but... > @@ -201,6 +202,7 @@ static void efx_mtd_sync(struct mtd_info *mtd) > return; > } > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SFC_MTD > void efx_mtd_remove(struct efx_nic *efx) > { > if (efx->spi_flash && efx->spi_flash->mtd) { > @@ -266,3 +268,4 @@ int efx_mtd_probe(struct efx_nic *efx) > > return 0; > } > +#endif /* CONFIG_SFC_MTD */ This is wrong. The entire file is conditional on CONFIG_SFC_MTD. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings, Senior Software Engineer, Solarflare Communications Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.