[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cff6d1fcd3331574a5189737f1f58774882649fe.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2024 17:51:20 +0200
From: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>, Arnd Bergmann
<arnd@...db.de>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>, David Gow
<davidgow@...gle.com>, Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, Richard
Weinberger <richard@....at>, linux-um@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] um: kunit: resolve missing prototypes warning
First of all, thanks for the quick reply
> I get that you have this on kunit on ARCH=um, but that makes it
> neither
> a kunit nor a um patch :)
Well, yes I wasn't entirely sure how to put it, sure people from
UM/KUnit know what this is about, but I agree perhaps the patch title
can be a bit misleading.
> Arnd had originally wanted to fix this another way, but that got
> dropped. I don't know if this fix is right, though I can see that it
> works. I have the same workaround in my tree, but I'm really not
> convinced that it doesn't have side-effects on other architectures.
I thought about doing it differently, perhaps using an additional
header file or even re-arranging the macro dependency, this seemed to
me the easiest and perhaps less risky for other architectures, but I
get the concerns.
I could perform some further analyses building it for multiple targets
(besides _it builds_ I mean), if you have anything specific in mind.
Gabriele
Powered by blists - more mailing lists