linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Loongson64: Make some functions static in smp.c

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]

Message-ID: <20210601094736.GB6961@alpha.franken.de>
Date:   Tue, 1 Jun 2021 11:47:36 +0200
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>
Cc:     linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Loongson64: Make some functions static in smp.c

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 07:52:53PM +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> Make some functions static to fix the following sparse warnings:
> 
>   arch/mips/loongson64/smp.c:54:5: sparse: sparse: symbol 'ipi_read_clear' was not declared. Should it be static?
>   arch/mips/loongson64/smp.c:55:6: sparse: sparse: symbol 'ipi_write_action' was not declared. Should it be static?
>   arch/mips/loongson64/smp.c:56:6: sparse: sparse: symbol 'ipi_write_enable' was not declared. Should it be static?
>   arch/mips/loongson64/smp.c:57:6: sparse: sparse: symbol 'ipi_clear_buf' was not declared. Should it be static?
>   arch/mips/loongson64/smp.c:58:6: sparse: sparse: symbol 'ipi_write_buf' was not declared. Should it be static?
> 
> Fixes: fed4955f304e ("MIPS: Loongson64: Add Mail_Send support for 3A4000+ CPU")
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@...ngson.cn>
> ---
>  arch/mips/loongson64/smp.c | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

applied to mips-next.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]