[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140227155149.GB26756@thin>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 07:51:50 -0800
From: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Rashika Kheria <rashika.kheria@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/46] kernel: MOve prototype declaration to header file
include/linux/perf_event.h
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:54:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 05:02:48PM +0530, Rashika Kheria wrote:
> > Add prototype declaration of function to header file
> > include/linux/perf_event.h because it is used by more than one file.
> >
> > This eliminates the following warning in kernel/events/core.c:
> > kernel/events/core.c:3743:13: warning: no previous prototype for ‘arch_perf_update_userpage’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
>
> # git grep arch_perf_update_userpage
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c:void arch_perf_update_userpage(struct perf_event_mmap_page *userpg, u64 now)
> kernel/events/core.c:void __weak arch_perf_update_userpage(struct perf_event_mmap_page *userpg, u64 now)
> kernel/events/core.c: arch_perf_update_userpage(userpg, now);
>
>
> There's two definitions; one weak, and one usage site.
>
> What gives?
There's no prototype for the function anywhere, so -Wmissing-prototypes
rightfully complains. Adding the prototype to a header included in both
source files ensures that the function signatures must match, and
eliminates the warning.
- Josh Triplett
--
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