linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 02/21] printk: Make vprintk

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: <20250709171804.DPvV6FSL@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 19:18:04 +0200
From: Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de>
To: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	john.ogness@...utronix.de, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 02/21] printk: Make vprintk_deferred() public

On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 06:02:23PM +0200, Gabriele Monaco wrote:
> Was just running tests after rebasing and I received a kernel bot
> warning from an unlikely build without CONFIG_PRINTK [1].
> 
> >> include/linux/printk.h:218:20: warning: no previous prototype for
> function 'vprintk_deferred' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
>      218 | __printf(1, 0) int vprintk_deferred(const char *fmt, va_list
> args)
>          |                    ^
>    include/linux/printk.h:218:16: note: declare 'static' if the
> function is not intended to be used outside of this translation unit
>      218 | __printf(1, 0) int vprintk_deferred(const char *fmt, va_list
> args)
>          |                ^
>          |                static
>    1 warning generated.

Arg, I have vague recollection that I fixed this one already.

> I believe this ought to be static:
> 
> +static inline __printf(1, 0) int vprintk_deferred(const char *fmt,
> +						   va_list args)
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}

Yes, will do. Thanks for the info.

Best regards,
Nam