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;
Date:   Tue, 4 Feb 2020 11:05:33 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] printk: Declare log_wait as external variable
Message-ID: <20200204090533.GM32742@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20200203131528.52825-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20200204021620.GD41358@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200204021620.GD41358@google.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 11:16:20AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (20/02/03 15:15), Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Static analyzer is not happy:
> > 
> > kernel/printk/printk.c:421:1: warning: symbol 'log_wait' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > 
> > This is due to usage of log_wait in the other module without announcing
> > its declaration to the world. I wasn't able to dug into deep history of
> > reasons why it is so, and thus decide to make less invasive change, i.e.
> > declaring log_wait as external variable to make static analyzer happy.
> 
> [..]
> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > index 633f41a11d75..43b5cb88c607 100644
> > --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> > @@ -418,7 +418,14 @@ DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(logbuf_lock);
> >  	} while (0)
> >
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_PRINTK
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS
> > +extern wait_queue_head_t log_wait;	/* Used in fs/proc/kmsg.c */
> >  DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(log_wait);
> > +#else
> > +static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(log_wait);
> > +#endif /* CONFIG_PROC_FS */
> 
> [..]
> 
> Since we are now introducing CONFIG_PROC_FS dependency to printk (and
> proc/kmsg already has CONFIG_PRINTK dependency),

I'm not sure I understood. The above does not introduce any dependencies.

>	then I guess I wouldn't
> mind it if fs/proc/kmsg would just relocate to printk, next to devksmg
> implementation. Just saying.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko