Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] iommu - Enable debugfs exposure of IOMMU driver
 internals
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>, "Hook, Gary" <ghook@amd.com>,
        kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Cc:     kbuild-all@01.org, iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        joro@8bytes.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <152572332370.3235.16541462864315443906.stgit@sosxen2.amd.com>
 <201805080700.Jm8moLQz%fengguang.wu@intel.com>
 <a9600652-f087-5d8f-ff0b-80200d570591@amd.com>
 <e671945494d54cdcf65c6d2af9f9f69d65fb2583.camel@perches.com>
From:   Gary R Hook <gary.hook@amd.com>
Message-ID: <239fdd0c-9497-7275-4e74-d6ccd028e823@amd.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 May 2018 15:07:08 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e671945494d54cdcf65c6d2af9f9f69d65fb2583.camel@perches.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: amd.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 May 2018 20:07:13.0339 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 46ddb714-d5f2-4636-bf8d-08d5b51f4a3c
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 3dd8961f-e488-4e60-8e11-a82d994e183d
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR12MB1445
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 05/08/2018 01:48 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-05-08 at 12:08 -0500, Hook, Gary wrote:
>> On 5/7/2018 6:47 PM, kbuild test robot wrote:
>>>
>>> All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
>>>
>>>      In file included from include/linux/intel-iommu.h:32:0,
>>>                       from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h:41,
>>>                       from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_oa_bxt.c:31:
>>>      include/linux/iommu.h: In function 'iommu_debugfs_new_driver_dir':
>>>>> include/linux/iommu.h:706:8: error: parameter name omitted
>>>
>>>       struct dentry *iommu_debugfs_new_driver_dir(char *) {};
>>>              ^~~~~~
>>>      In file included from include/linux/intel-iommu.h:32:0,
>>>                       from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h:41,
>>>                       from drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_oa_bxt.c:31:
>>>>> include/linux/iommu.h:706:8: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]
>>>
>>>       struct dentry *iommu_debugfs_new_driver_dir(char *) {};
>>>              ^~~~~~
>>>
>>> vim +706 include/linux/iommu.h
>>>
>>>      700	
>>>      701	#ifdef CONFIG_IOMMU_DEBUGFS
>>>      702	void iommu_debugfs_setup(void);
>>>      703	struct dentry *iommu_debugfs_new_driver_dir(char *);
>>>      704	#else
>>>      705	static inline void iommu_debugfs_setup(void) {}
>>>    > 706	struct dentry *iommu_debugfs_new_driver_dir(char *) {};
>>>      707	#endif
>>>      708	
>>
>> I have no problems with adding parameter names. But
>> scripts/checkpatch.pl doesn't seem to check for this, nor require it.
>> Should checkpatch be updated?
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's not feasible.

Ugh. This is a definition, not a declaration. My bad. Which is likely 
why I decided to apologize up front.

> And when the compiler tells you you've stuffed up some
> syntactical bit, why should checkpatch duplicate the
> output error message too?

Well, that's the point: neither the 4.8 nor 5.4 compiler complained 
about this. Not as an error, despite the fact that (now that I read what 
is actually here, as opposed to what I think is there) this is wrong. 
Had an error message been emitted, and the make stopped, I would have 
figure this out before embarrassing myself in front of the entire interwebs.

> btw:  That's an unnecessary ; at the end of that non-void
> function and it should probably be something like:

You are correct, sir. I've made a change on this.

> 
> static inline struct dentry *iommu_debugfs_new_driver_dir(char *dir)
> {
> 	return NULL;
> }

Thanks for taking a few moments to comment. Much appreciated.