linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: ion: solve warning symbol was not declared

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:   Wed, 24 Apr 2019 17:28:17 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Oscar Gomez Fuente <oscargomezf@...il.com>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, tkjos@...roid.com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org,
        arve@...roid.com, joel@...lfernandes.org, maco@...roid.com,
        sumit.semwal@...aro.org, christian@...uner.io
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: ion: solve warning symbol was not declared

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 08:49:27PM +0200, Oscar Gomez Fuente wrote:
> These changes solve warning symbol was not declared in the functions:
> ion_carveout_heap_create and ion_chunk_heap_create
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oscar Gomez Fuente <oscargomezf@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_carveout_heap.c | 2 +-
>  drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_chunk_heap.c    | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_carveout_heap.c b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_carveout_heap.c
> index bb9d614..3f359ae 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_carveout_heap.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_carveout_heap.c
> @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ static struct ion_heap_ops carveout_heap_ops = {
>  	.unmap_kernel = ion_heap_unmap_kernel,
>  };
>  
> -struct ion_heap *ion_carveout_heap_create(phys_addr_t base, size_t size)
> +static inline struct ion_heap *ion_carveout_heap_create(phys_addr_t base, size_t size)

Why are you making it inline?  Btw, normally we just leave it for the
compiler to choose which functions to make inline.

regards,
dan carpenter