netdev - Re: [PATCH] qed: mark symbols static where possible

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: <20160907.174454.2155488832420477020.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Wed, 07 Sep 2016 17:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com
Cc:     baoyou.xie@...aro.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de, xie.baoyou@....com.cn,
        Ariel.Elior@...gic.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] qed: mark symbols static where possible

From: Yuval Mintz <Yuval.Mintz@...gic.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:55:34 +0000

>> We get a few warnings when building kernel with W=1:
>> drivers/net/ethernet/qlogic/qed/qed_l2.c:112:5: warning: no previous
>> prototype for 'qed_sp_vport_start' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
>> ....
>> 
>> In fact, these functions are only used in the file in which they are
>> declared and don't need a declaration, but can be made static.
>> so this patch marks these functions with 'static'.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Baoyou Xie <baoyou.xie@...aro.org>
> 
> Most of this changes are correct. I have 2 reservations, though:
> 
> 1. qed_get_vport_stats() is in use in net-next by qed_main.c starting with
> 6c75424612a7 ("qed: Add support for NCSI statistics."), so we shouldn't
> make it static.
> [This raises the question of which repository was this patch built against?]
> 
> 2. Regarding the changes in qed_cxt.c - some of the functions you're turning
> into static are going to be used be other files in our pending RoCE driver
> submissions [you could say those ARE really missing their prototypes].
> I don't have a real objection to this change - I'm just stating that if you'll
> change those now to static, we'll probably 'revert' the change in the near
> future.

Baoyou, please respin this against net-next, thanks.