On 7/20/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 01:47:36PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > Hi Geert, > > > > On 7/20/07, Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> From: Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> m68k/mac: Make mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons() declaration visible > >> > >> drivers/char/keyboard.c: In function 'kbd_keycode': > >> drivers/char/keyboard.c:1142: error: implicit declaration of function > >> 'mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons' > >> > >> The forward declaration of mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons() is not visible > >> on > >> m68k because it's hidden in the middle of a big #ifdef block. > >> > >> Move it to <linux/hid.h>, correct the type of the second parameter, and > >> include <linux/hid.h> where needed. > > > > linux/hid.h contains definitions needed for drivers speaking HID > > protocol, I don't think we want to put quirks for legacy keyboard > > driver there. I'd just move the #ifdef within drivers/char/keyboard.c > > for now. > >... > > If you only move it you will keep the bug of the wrong second parameter. > > But if you move it to any header file gcc is able to figure out such > errors itself instead of them being nasty runtime errors. > > Such prototypes in C files are really bad since (like in this case) they > prevent the finding of bugs. It doesn't matter which header file you put > the prototype into (it can even be a new one), but it belongs into a > header file. >
I am OK with adding a new header file. I was just saying that placing that declaration in linux/hid.h makes about the same sense as putting it into linux/scsi.h -- Dmitry _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
