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;
Message-ID: <1cd1be12f42411b7d6d72cd4839cbbbb8153d400.camel@philpotter.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: r8188eu: remove forward declaration of
 Efuse_Read1ByteFromFakeContent
From:   Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>
To:     Michael Straube <straube.linux@gmail.com>,
        "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        martin@kaiser.cx, Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Date:   Sat, 21 Aug 2021 11:42:50 +0100
In-Reply-To: <b0819fe2-e7cf-b6bc-5930-a31e10da811d@gmail.com>
References: <20210821000508.79422-1-phil@philpotter.co.uk>
         <5110838.kRcMR4ARJC@localhost.localdomain>
         <b0819fe2-e7cf-b6bc-5930-a31e10da811d@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.3 (3.40.3-1.fc34) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 2021-08-21 at 10:30 +0200, Michael Straube wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/21/21 5:17 AM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 21, 2021 2:05:08 AM CEST Phillip Potter wrote:
> > > Remove forward declaration of Efuse_Read1ByteFromFakeContent
> > > function
> > > from core/rtw_efuse.c, as the function is defined in full
> > > directly
> > > after this and therefore this forward declaration is redundant.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/staging/r8188eu/core/rtw_efuse.c | 6 ------
> > >   1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Philip,
> > 
> > It's pretty clear that this function has only a translation unit
> > visibility.
> > Why don't you make it clear by defining it with storage class
> > "static"?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Fabio
> > 
> > 
> 
> Hi Phillip,
> 
> I agree with Fabio, making the function static avoids the 
> [-Wmissing-prototypes] warning and makes it clear that it is only
> used 
> in this file.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael

Dear Michael and Fabio,

You're both absolutely right, thank you for the feedback. It did occur
to me at the time that I could just make this static, and indeed the
change introduces a kernel test robot warning as it is currently, due
to -Wmissing-prototypes as mentioned. I shall rework, many thanks.

Regards,
Phil