[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191009175149.GA28540@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 10:51:49 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...ts.codethink.co.uk,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
Aurelien Jacquiot <jacquiot.aurelien@...il.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-c6x-dev@...ux-c6x.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: centralise declaration of cpuinfo_op
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 12:39:30PM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote:
> When building for arm, cpuinfo_op generates a warning due
> to no declaration. Since this is used in fs/proc/cpuinfo.c
> and inconsitently declared across archiectures move the
> declaration info <linux/seq_file.h>. This means that the
> cpuinfo_op will have a declaration any place it is used.
>
> Removes the following sparse warning:
>
> arch/arm/kernel/setup.c:1320:29: warning: symbol 'cpuinfo_op' was not declared. Should it be static?
I like the consolidation, but I don't think seq_file.h is the right
place. A procfs or cpu topology related header seems like the better
choice.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists