[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DM5PR11MB1723D8845DD64E2634DBC41D97F80@DM5PR11MB1723.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:37:07 +0000
From: Yuval Mintz <Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com>
To: Baoyou Xie <baoyou.xie@...aro.org>
CC: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"xie.baoyou@....com.cn" <xie.baoyou@....com.cn>,
Ariel Elior <Ariel.Elior@...gic.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] qed: add missing header dependencies
> We get 4 warnings when building kernel with W=1:
> drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_selftest.c:6:5: warning: no previous
> prototype for 'qed_selftest_memory' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_selftest.c:19:5: warning: no previous
> prototype for 'qed_selftest_interrupt' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_selftest.c:32:5: warning: no previous
> prototype for 'qed_selftest_register' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_selftest.c:55:5: warning: no previous
> prototype for 'qed_selftest_clock' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
>
> In fact, these functions are declared in qed_selftest.h, so this patch add missing
> header dependencies.
>
> Signed-off-by: Baoyou Xie <baoyou.xie@...aro.org>
While I obviously have no strong objection for including qed_selftest.h
from qed_selftest.c, I'm not sure I understand which C standard dictates
this requirement.
Why should a function definition [not call] be preceded by a prototype?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists