linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] drivers: cpufreq: Mark function as static in cpufreq.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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 3 Mar 2014 12:50:43 +0530
From:	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:	Patrick Palka <patrick@...cs.ath.cx>
Cc:	Rashika Kheria <rashika.kheria@...il.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drivers: cpufreq: Mark function as static in cpufreq.c

On 3 March 2014 09:12, Patrick Palka <patrick@...cs.ath.cx> wrote:
> -Wmissing-prototypes warns when a non-static function is defined
> before a corresponding prototype (usually inside an included header
> file) is declared.  In such a case, it is impossible to reference the
> non-static function from another file, and therefore the function
> should be marked static (usually).  Hope that makes sense!

I understand that it should be made static as we don't have a
prototype in any other header file, but I thought we shouldn't
get the warning we are getting.

warning: no previous prototype for 'show_boost'

Because we have prototype/definition of function before it is used.
Maybe a warning like:

local function should be marked static could have been there ;)
--
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/