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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20190528151331.GA29554@fieldses.org>
Date:   Tue, 28 May 2019 11:13:31 -0400
From:   "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:     Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@...hat.com>
Cc:     YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>, 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

On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 06:49:13AM -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
> 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?

Either would be fine.  Yeah, if it was folded in then we'd add a line
like

	[hulkci@...wei.com: make symbols static to fix sparse warnings]

But I'll probably just add it on to the end for now.  No need for you to
do anything.

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

I dunno, I wonder if we're better off just leaving it to this CI bot.
It seems like a more efficient use of time overall than making every
contributor run it.

--b.

> 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