On 6/25/19 2:00 PM, Saeed Mahameed wrote: > On Tue, 2019-06-25 at 11:27 -0400, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> From: Jes Sorensen <jsoren...@fb.com> >> >> The previous patch broke the build with a static declaration for >> a public function. >> >> Fixes: 8f0916c6dc5c (net/mlx5e: Fix ethtool rxfh commands when >> CONFIG_MLX5_EN_RXNFC is disabled) >> Signed-off-by: Jes Sorensen <jsoren...@fb.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_ethtool.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_ethtool.c >> b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_ethtool.c >> index dd764e0471f2..776040d91bd4 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_ethtool.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_ethtool.c >> @@ -1905,7 +1905,8 @@ static int mlx5e_flash_device(struct net_device >> *dev, >> /* When CONFIG_MLX5_EN_RXNFC=n we only support ETHTOOL_GRXRINGS >> * otherwise this function will be defined from en_fs_ethtool.c >> */ > > As the above comment states, when CONFIG_MLX5_EN_RXNFC is disabled, > mlx5e_get_rxnfc is only defined, declared and used in this file, so it > must be static. Otherwise it will be defined in another file which > provides much much more functionality for ethtool flow steering. > > can you please provide more information of what went wrong on your > build machine ?
Sorry was swamped here! Looks like you're right, it only triggers in our build due to some patches we don't have from upstream. I did the patch against upstream and applied it to our tree, so should have checked further there. Cheers, Jes
