[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5E37ED5E-2FE2-49BF-8B7F-A40C043D95FD@intel.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 10:11:06 +0000
From: "Drokin, Oleg" <oleg.drokin@...el.com>
To: Ioan-Adrian Ratiu <adi@...rat.com>
CC: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"<HPDD-discuss@...ts.01.org>" <HPDD-discuss@...ts.01.org>,
"<devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
"<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH] staging: lustre: ptlrpc: add missing
include directive
Hello!
On Aug 15, 2015, at 4:13 AM, Ioan-Adrian Ratiu wrote:
>>> Without including ptlrpc_internal.h, GCC gives prototype warnings
>>> "pack_generic.c:642:5: warning: no previous prototype for ..."
>> It does? What version of gcc give you that, I don't see that here.
> Yes, but it's a non-default warning (-Wmissing-prototypes)
>
> $ gcc --version
> gcc (Gentoo 4.9.3 p1.0, pie-0.6.2) 4.9.3
>
> When testing the above patch I've used Ubuntu Vivid Vervet's gcc
> (also 4.9 I think, I don't have access to that machine right now).
>
> To see the warn I'm adding "ccflags-y := -Wmissing-prototypes"
> to a Makefile then "make SUBDIRS=…"
Duh, so essentially it tells you that you have a non-static function
that lacks a previously defined prototype, but because it's
non-static, it's likely used elsewhere and the prototype might get
out of sync with the actual function definition?
I guess it's no big deal to include the ptlrpc_internal.h there
to catch potential problems like that.
Thanks.
Bye,
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists