linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: remove incorrect forward declaration

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]

Message-ID: <6236240.bcXTAP1H4S@wuerfel>
Date:	Fri, 27 May 2016 23:55:54 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
Cc:	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@...cle.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
	Julien Grall <julien.grall@...rix.com>,
	Ross Lagerwall <ross.lagerwall@...rix.com>,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: remove incorrect forward declaration

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 11:32:40 AM CEST David Vrabel wrote:
> On 11/05/16 14:07, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > A bugfix patch for the xen balloon driver introduced a forward
> > declaration for a static function that is conditionally compiled,
> > causing a warning if only the declaration but not the definition
> > are there:
> > 
> > drivers/xen/balloon.c:154:13: error: 'release_memory_resource' declared 'static' but never defined [-Werror=unused-function]
> >  static void release_memory_resource(struct resource *resource);
> > 
> > This removes the declaration again and instead moves the function
> > definition to the right place, before its first caller and inside
> > of the #ifdef protecting both.
> 
> I've applied the equivalent patch from Ross, instead.

Ok, thanks.

> > The patch that introduced the warning is marked for stable
> > backports, so if that gets applied to 4.4, so should this one.
> 
> Fixes for compiler warnings are not sufficiently important to be
> backported to stable.

Sure, but this is not an existing warning but one that only gets
introduced after the other patch gets backported, which I'd consider
a different category.

	Arnd