linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] signal: trivial, fix the "timespec declared inside parameter list" warning

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: <20110519181931.GA22506@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 19 May 2011 20:19:31 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"Nikita V. Youshchenko" <nyoushchenko@...sta.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] signal: trivial, fix the "timespec declared inside
	parameter list" warning

On 05/18, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 May 2011 14:57:29 +0200
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > Fix the compile warning, do_sigtimedwait(struct timespec *) in signal.h
> > needs the forward declaration of timespec.
> >
>
> The offending patch is in your tree, so you may as well put this patch
> in there too.

Yes, it is already in my tree, sorry for confusion.

> > --- sigprocmask/include/linux/signal.h~15_stw_warning	2011-05-12 20:44:43.000000000 +0200
> > +++ sigprocmask/include/linux/signal.h	2011-05-16 14:53:08.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -234,6 +234,9 @@ static inline int valid_signal(unsigned 
> >  	return sig <= _NSIG ? 1 : 0;
> >  }
> >
> > +struct timespec;
> > +struct pt_regs;
> > +
> >  extern int next_signal(struct sigpending *pending, sigset_t *mask);
> >  extern int do_send_sig_info(int sig, struct siginfo *info,
> >  				struct task_struct *p, bool group);
>
> Please put the forward declarations at top-of-file.  In this case,
> inside #ifdef __KERNEL__.  This reduces the risk of accumulating
> duplicated forward declarations, as has happened in the past.

This is what Mike suggested from the very beginnig. Perhaps this
would be better but since I already applied this patch... I'd prefer
to not test my git skills, unless you or Mike object.

Oleg.

--
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/