linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/9] bfs: move function prototype to the proper header file

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0801242318560.8513@ginsburg.homenet>
Date:	Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:22:21 +0000 (GMT)
From:	Tigran Aivazian <tigran@...azian.fsnet.co.uk>
To:	Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@...il.com>
cc:	Heikki Orsila <shdl@...alwe.fi>, trivial@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] bfs: move function prototype to the proper header
 file

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Dmitri Vorobiev wrote:

> Heikki Orsila пишет:
>>> +extern void dump_imap(const char *, struct super_block *);
>>> +
>>
>> Functions should not be externed, remove extern keyword.
>>
>
> Care to explain why?

because dump_imap() is just a BFS' internal helper (for debugging purposes 
only btw) to dump the inode map via printk. Why should it be moved into 
the header, i.e. where one expects to see things potentially visible by 
the rest of the kernel?

> 3) The checkpatch.pl did not complain at this particular patch.

maybe this script should be simplified to not complain at things like 
that, which are best left to the author of the code to decide which 
declaration should be where?

Kind regards
Tigran