On 0804T0724, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 07:16:50AM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 01:52:46PM -0400, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Edward Tomasz Napierala > > > <tr...@freebsd.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Author: trasz > > > > Date: Mon Aug 3 16:30:47 2015 > > > > New Revision: 286236 > > > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/286236 > > > > > > > > Log: > > > > Document vgonel(9). > > > > > > > > > > Er, isn't this a step backwards? > > > > > > % static void vgonel(struct vnode *); > > > > > > It is only accidental that anything outside vfs_subr.c can call vgonel(). > > Indeed, only kernel modules on some architectures could use a hole in > > the kernel linker to reference vgonel(). The kernel itself cannot call > > vgonel() outside vfs_subr.c. There is no point in putting vgonel(9) in > > the man page. > > I believe the source of the confusion is the vgonel() definition, which > lacks the static qualifier. I propose to remove vgonel(9) reference from > the man page and add static to definition.
Done. > Might be, a review of all functions in vfs_*.c and fixing their missed > qualifiers would be useful. Would be nice if clang warned about this case. No idea why it doesn't. _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
