We get a warning when building kernel with W=1:
arch/x86/kernel/irqinit.c:79:13: warning: no previous prototype for ‘init_IRQ’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
void __init init_IRQ(void)
^
Add the missing declaration in head file to fix this.
Signed-off-by: Yi Wang <[email protected]>
---
arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h
index 2395bb7..399a9c5 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h
@@ -41,6 +41,8 @@ static inline int irq_canonicalize(int irq)
extern void init_ISA_irqs(void);
+extern void __init init_IRQ(void);
+
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC
void arch_trigger_cpumask_backtrace(const struct cpumask *mask,
bool exclude_self);
--
1.8.3.1
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 09:56:29AM +0800, Yi Wang wrote:
> We get a warning when building kernel with W=1:
> arch/x86/kernel/irqinit.c:79:13: warning: no previous prototype for ‘init_IRQ’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
> void __init init_IRQ(void)
> ^
>
> Add the missing declaration in head file to fix this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yi Wang <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h
> index 2395bb7..399a9c5 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h
> @@ -41,6 +41,8 @@ static inline int irq_canonicalize(int irq)
>
> extern void init_ISA_irqs(void);
>
> +extern void __init init_IRQ(void);
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC
> void arch_trigger_cpumask_backtrace(const struct cpumask *mask,
> bool exclude_self);
> --
I'm not sure we should do one patch per warning - that's too granulary.
What I did earlier was this:
make allmodconfig
make W=1 arch/x86/kernel/apic/
and then looked at all those -Wmissing-prototypes warnings.
Once I've fixed them, I commit the result as a
x86/apic: Fix -Wmissing-prototypes warnings
and this way it is more or less per subsystem or folder or whatever,
which still keeps the amount of patches sane for further handling.
Now, I did some fixes here so I'd suggest you do all your patches ontop
of tip/master after merging this branch into it:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bp/bp.git/log/?h=tip-ras-core
I'll push it into tip the next days.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 07:31:44PM +0800, [email protected] wrote:
> I thought this can keep patches dependent and can be reverted easily if one
> of them has something wrong.
Same thing with per-directory or subsystem - just less granulary.
> Thanks for your suggestion, I will do as you advised. :-)
Yeah, this was just an idea. Let's see how it really works out.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 02:59:54PM +0800, [email protected] wrote:
> make allyesconfig; make W=1 arch/x86/kernel
> make: Nothing to be done for `arch/x86/kernel'
make allyesconfig; make W=1 arch/x86/kernel/
Note the trailing "/"
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.