Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 8 Jun 2020 21:42:45 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Cc:     Benjamin Thiel <b.thiel@posteo.de>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>, x86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/xen: Fix a -Wmissing prototypes warning for
 xen_start_kernel()
Message-ID: <20200608194245.GC21538@zn.tnic>
References: <20200606142721.19486-1-b.thiel@posteo.de>
 <21d6821e-e488-138e-a0be-2177c4aa13b2@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <21d6821e-e488-138e-a0be-2177c4aa13b2@oracle.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 03:30:13PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> TBH I am not sure it's worth a new header file for a routine that is
> only called from assembly (and never returns). I'd just add the
> prototype right above function definition, with a comment describing
> why. 

Right, that works too.

> I see a few examples of this in the tree. Or maybe we even have an
> attribute for this case?

Not that I'm aware of.

> (I also suspect the same may be needed for xen_prepare_pvh() BTW).

Yeah, Benni is working through the rest of them. Btw, the final goal of
this whole work is to enable -Wmissing-prototypes by default on x86.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette