linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers: base: Add prototype declaration in memory.c

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]

Date:	Wed, 18 Dec 2013 11:03:44 -0800
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	josh@...htriplett.org
Cc:	Rashika Kheria <rashika.kheria@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: base: Add prototype declaration in memory.c

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:01:08AM -0800, josh@...htriplett.org wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 07:34:51AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:09:53PM +0530, Rashika Kheria wrote:
> > > Add the prototype declaration of function memory_block_size_bytes() in
> > > memory.c.
> > > 
> > > This eliminates the following warning in memory.c:
> > > drivers/base/memory.c:87:1: warning: no previous prototype for ‘memory_block_size_bytes’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Rashika Kheria <rashika.kheria@...il.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/base/memory.c |    1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/memory.c b/drivers/base/memory.c
> > > index bece691..cfa03de 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/memory.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/memory.c
> > > @@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ static void memory_block_release(struct device *dev)
> > >  	kfree(mem);
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +unsigned long __weak memory_block_size_bytes(void);
> > >  unsigned long __weak memory_block_size_bytes(void)
> > 
> > If this patch is the "solution" then something else is really wrong
> > here, please use your judgement to realize this...
> 
> It's a weak symbol provided and consumed within the same file, and then
> overridden on a few random architectures.  It isn't currently prototyped
> in any header file.  The other potential solution would be to add it to
> an appropriate existing header or create a new one.  Any suggestions for
> an appropriate existing header to prototype it in instead?

device.h?
--
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/