linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] lockd: Make two symbols 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <97D052EC-1F07-4210-81CC-7E0085C095BD@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 May 2019 06:49:13 -0400
From:   "Benjamin Coddington" <bcodding@...hat.com>
To:     YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>, bfields@...ldses.org
Cc:     jlayton@...nel.org, trond.myklebust@...merspace.com,
        anna.schumaker@...app.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] lockd: Make two symbols static

Maintainers, what's the best thing to do here: fold these into another 
patch version and post it (add attribution)?  Add it as another patch at 
the end of the series?

I have learned my lesson: add sparse to my workflow.

Ben

On 28 May 2019, at 5:06, YueHaibing wrote:

> Fix sparse warnings:
>
> fs/lockd/clntproc.c:57:6: warning: symbol 'nlmclnt_put_lockowner' was 
> not declared. Should it be static?
> fs/lockd/svclock.c:409:35: warning: symbol 'nlmsvc_lock_ops' was not 
> declared. Should it be static?
>
> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
> ---
>  fs/lockd/clntproc.c | 2 +-
>  fs/lockd/svclock.c  | 2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/lockd/clntproc.c b/fs/lockd/clntproc.c
> index 0ff8ad4..b11f2af 100644
> --- a/fs/lockd/clntproc.c
> +++ b/fs/lockd/clntproc.c
> @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ nlmclnt_get_lockowner(struct nlm_lockowner 
> *lockowner)
>  	return lockowner;
>  }
>
> -void nlmclnt_put_lockowner(struct nlm_lockowner *lockowner)
> +static void nlmclnt_put_lockowner(struct nlm_lockowner *lockowner)
>  {
>  	if (!refcount_dec_and_lock(&lockowner->count, 
> &lockowner->host->h_lock))
>  		return;
> diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> index 5f9f19b..61d3cc2 100644
> --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
> @@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ static void nlmsvc_locks_release_private(struct 
> file_lock *fl)
>  	nlmsvc_put_lockowner((struct nlm_lockowner *)fl->fl_owner);
>  }
>
> -const struct file_lock_operations nlmsvc_lock_ops = {
> +static const struct file_lock_operations nlmsvc_lock_ops = {
>  	.fl_copy_lock = nlmsvc_locks_copy_lock,
>  	.fl_release_private = nlmsvc_locks_release_private,
>  };
> -- 
> 2.7.4