Re: [PATCH 00/20] x86: address -Wmissing-prototype warnings
On Thu, May 18, 2023, at 23:56, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 5/16/23 12:35, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >> All of the warnings have to be addressed in some form before the warning >> can be enabled by default. > > I picked up the ones that were blatantly obvious, but left out 03, 04, > 10, 12 and 19 for the moment. Ok, thanks! I've already sent a fixed version of patch 10, let me know if you need anything else for the other ones. > BTW, I think the i386 allyesconfig is getting pretty lightly tested > these days. I think you and I hit the same mlx4 __bad_copy_from() > compile issue. I did all my testing on randconfig builds, so I probably caught a lot of the more obscure corner cases, but it doesn't always hit everything that is in allyesconfig/allmodconfig. Arnd ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [PATCH 00/20] x86: address -Wmissing-prototype warnings
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 12:56 AM Dave Hansen wrote: > On 5/16/23 12:35, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I picked up the ones that were blatantly obvious, but left out 03, 04, > 10, 12 and 19 for the moment. Btw, there is series that went unnoticed https://lore.kernel.org/all/2029110017.48510-1-andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com/ I dunno why. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [PATCH 00/20] x86: address -Wmissing-prototype warnings
On 5/16/23 12:35, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > From: Arnd Bergmann > > This addresses all x86 specific prototype warnings. The majority of the > patches should be straightforward, either adding an #include statement > to get the right header, or ensuring that an unused global function is > left out of the build when the prototype is hidden. > > The ones that are a bit awkward are those that just add a prototype to > shut up the warning, but the prototypes are never used for calling the > function because the only caller is in assembler code. I tried to come up > with other ways to shut up the compiler using the asmlinkage annotation, > but with no success. > > All of the warnings have to be addressed in some form before the warning > can be enabled by default. I picked up the ones that were blatantly obvious, but left out 03, 04, 10, 12 and 19 for the moment. BTW, I think the i386 allyesconfig is getting pretty lightly tested these days. I think you and I hit the same mlx4 __bad_copy_from() compile issue. ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
Re: [PATCH 00/20] x86: address -Wmissing-prototype warnings
On 5/16/23 12:35, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > The ones that are a bit awkward are those that just add a prototype to > shut up the warning, but the prototypes are never used for calling the > function because the only caller is in assembler code. I tried to come up > with other ways to shut up the compiler using the asmlinkage annotation, > but with no success. I went looking for the same thing. It's too bad gcc doesn't have an __attribute__ for it. ___ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
