[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <493feab4.0aaa660a.7938.3213@mx.google.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:13:44 +0100
From: Hannes Eder <hannes@...neseder.net>
To: Karsten Keil <kkeil@...e.de>
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 4/9] mISDN: fix sparse warnings
Impact: make an exported symbol non static
Fix this warning:
drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/hfcmulti.c:176:1: warning: symbol 'plx_lock' shadows an earlier one
drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/hfcmulti.c:175:19: originally declared here
Signed-off-by: Hannes Eder <hannes@...neseder.net>
---
Note that patch introduces this new warning:
drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/hfcmulti.c:175:12: warning: symbol 'plx_lock' was not declared. Should it be static?
Should 'plx_lock' be declared in a header file? Or is it really
neccessart to export it?
drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/hfcmulti.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/hfcmulti.c b/drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/hfcmulti.c
index 599d832..b4595f7 100644
--- a/drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/hfcmulti.c
+++ b/drivers/isdn/hardware/mISDN/hfcmulti.c
@@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ static int interrupt_registered;
static struct hfc_multi *syncmaster;
static int plxsd_master; /* if we have a master card (yet) */
-static spinlock_t plx_lock; /* may not acquire other lock inside */
+spinlock_t plx_lock; /* may not acquire other lock inside */
EXPORT_SYMBOL(plx_lock);
#define TYP_E1 1
--
1.5.6.3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists