linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] pinctrl: artpec6: Make two functions static

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 9 Apr 2019 09:35:43 +0800
From:   YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
CC:     <jesper.nilsson@...s.com>, <lars.persson@...s.com>,
        <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...s.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] pinctrl: artpec6: Make two functions static


On 2019/4/9 2:01, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 11:09:09PM +0800, Yue Haibing wrote:
>> From: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
>>
>> Fix sparse warnings:
>>
>> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-artpec6.c:691:5: warning:
>>  symbol 'artpec6_pmx_enable' was not declared. Should it be static?
>> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-artpec6.c:705:6: warning:
>>  symbol 'artpec6_pmx_disable' was not declared. Should it be static?
>>
>> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-artpec6.c | 10 ++++++----
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-artpec6.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-artpec6.c
>> index d89dc43..e836850 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-artpec6.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-artpec6.c
>> @@ -688,8 +688,9 @@ static void artpec6_pmx_select_func(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>>  	}
>>  }
>>  
>> -int artpec6_pmx_enable(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned int function,
>> -		       unsigned int group)
>> +static int artpec6_pmx_enable(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>> +			      unsigned int function,
>> +			      unsigned int group)
>>  {
>>  	struct artpec6_pmx *pmx = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
>>  
>> @@ -702,8 +703,9 @@ int artpec6_pmx_enable(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned int function,
>>  	return 0;
>>  }
>>  
>> -void artpec6_pmx_disable(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned int function,
>> -			 unsigned int group)
>> +static void artpec6_pmx_disable(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>> +				unsigned int function,
>> +				unsigned int group)
> 
> On arm32 allyesconfig:
> 
> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-artpec6.c:706:13: error: unused function
> 'artpec6_pmx_disable' [-Werror,-Wunused-function]
> 
> This is the second time you've introduced an unused function warning by
> making a function static[1], could you please be a little more vigilant
> in your clean ups in the future?

Sorry for this.

> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190327050126.12064-1-natechancellor@gmail.com/
> 
> Linus/Jesper/Lars, should this function just be deleted? I'd be happy to
> send a patch doing so if that's the right course of action.
> 
> Thanks,
> Nathan
> 
>>  {
>>  	struct artpec6_pmx *pmx = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
>>  
>> -- 
>> 2.7.0
>>
>>
> 
> .
>