[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402111821510.13509@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:23:22 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix two sparse warnings in early boot string
handling
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > > Fixes:
> > >
> > > arch/x86/boot/compressed/../string.c:60:14: warning: symbol 'atou' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > > arch/x86/boot/string.c:133:6: warning: symbol 'strstr' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > >
> > > The atou one could be considered a false positive; it seems somehow
> > > caused by including ./string.c from within /compressed/string.c file.
> > > However git grep shows only the atou prototype and declaration, so
> > > it is completely unused and we can hence delete it.
> > >
> >
> > Declaring a prototype in a header file would be pointless if there is no
> > current breakage; I don't see why you can't remove strstr() in
> > arch/x86/boot/string.c entirely. What breaks?
>
> Explicit breakage vs. sparse warnings are two different things. It may
> be that we can delete strstr() just like I did for atou() -- but in the
> interest of doing the minimal change, I did just what was needed for
> fixing the sparse warnings for strstr. I can test if it can be removed,
> but it has the smell of generic-libc usage all over it...
>
When the minimal change is to add an unnecessary prototype for a function
that is not referenced, it doesn't seem acceptable.
--
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