On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 02:55:45PM -0800, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 08:23:35PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 07:51:50AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:54:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 05:02:48PM +0530, Rashika Kheria wrote: > > > > > Add prototype declaration of function to header file > > > > > include/linux/perf_event.h because it is used by more than one file. > > > > > > > > > > This eliminates the following warning in kernel/events/core.c: > > > > > kernel/events/core.c:3743:13: warning: no previous prototype for > > > > > ‘arch_perf_update_userpage’ [-Wmissing-prototypes] > > > > > > > > # git grep arch_perf_update_userpage > > > > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c:void arch_perf_update_userpage(struct > > > > perf_event_mmap_page *userpg, u64 now) > > > > kernel/events/core.c:void __weak arch_perf_update_userpage(struct > > > > perf_event_mmap_page *userpg, u64 now) > > > > kernel/events/core.c: arch_perf_update_userpage(userpg, now); > > > > > > > > > > > > There's two definitions; one weak, and one usage site. > > > > > > > > What gives? > > > > > > There's no prototype for the function anywhere, so -Wmissing-prototypes > > > rightfully complains. Adding the prototype to a header included in both > > > source files ensures that the function signatures must match, and > > > eliminates the warning. > > > > Definitions don't require prior declarations. Only usage without prior > > definitions require them. > > > > I still don't see a problem. > > There's value in -Wmissing-prototypes; it's equivalent to the Sparse > check that ensures functions are marked as static when they're not used > outside the file they're defined in (though unlike the Sparse check it > only applies to functions, not data). The goal isn't "make the warning > go away"; the goal of passing -Wmissing-prototypes is: > > - Get rid of unused functions (many of which have been caught by this > effort). > - Mark functions as static where possible (which enables the above and > also improves code generation). > - Include headers that declare functions in the source files that define > them, not just in the source files that use them. That keeps the > declaration and definition in sync (which has caught some real bugs as > part of this effort). > - When no such header exists for a function used across multiple files, > add the prototype to an appropriate header and use that. Again, this > has caught real bugs as part of this effort, when the definition and > use were out of sync. (For instance, disagreeing in return type.)
Well then say that already; the reason I reacted so strongly is because I'm busy, and I don't have time for */46 patches that look like robot output. The changelog reads like its just making warns go away; the patches look automated; including the typical non-thinking robot fails; _AND_ its got a review tag from someone who should bloody well know better than to send crap patches like this. This all is a huge waste of time from my side; and you're doing your intern a disservice by training him to be a thoughtless robot. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
