On 14-02-11 09:23 PM, David Rientjes wrote: > On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > >>>> Fixes: >>>> >>>> arch/x86/boot/compressed/../string.c:60:14: warning: symbol 'atou' was not >>>> declared. Should it be static? >>>> arch/x86/boot/string.c:133:6: warning: symbol 'strstr' was not declared. >>>> Should it be static? >>>> >>>> The atou one could be considered a false positive; it seems somehow >>>> caused by including ./string.c from within /compressed/string.c file. >>>> However git grep shows only the atou prototype and declaration, so >>>> it is completely unused and we can hence delete it. >>>> >>> >>> Declaring a prototype in a header file would be pointless if there is no >>> current breakage; I don't see why you can't remove strstr() in >>> arch/x86/boot/string.c entirely. What breaks? >> >> Explicit breakage vs. sparse warnings are two different things. It may >> be that we can delete strstr() just like I did for atou() -- but in the >> interest of doing the minimal change, I did just what was needed for >> fixing the sparse warnings for strstr. I can test if it can be removed, >> but it has the smell of generic-libc usage all over it... >> > > When the minimal change is to add an unnecessary prototype for a function > that is not referenced, it doesn't seem acceptable.
OK, fair enough -- it seems surprisingly unused, as well as strcmp, despite my gut feeling that they'd be used in multiple places. I'll send a v2 that deletes all three once it passes allyesconfig on linux-next for x86 32/64/uml. Thanks, Paul. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
