Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To:     Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Sachin Sant <sachinp@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: Fix build error when
 CONFIG_SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR is not set
In-Reply-To: <4dd9afa4-ddc1-c6c9-1205-bca28a858022@linux.ibm.com>
References: <20220727092109.31362-1-ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
 <87sfmmaipn.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
 <4dd9afa4-ddc1-c6c9-1205-bca28a858022@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jul 2022 13:18:06 +1000
Message-ID: <87ilni9b81.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> Le 27/07/2022 =C3=A0 13:38, Michael Ellerman a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
>> Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>> Sachin reported the following build error when CONFIG_SOFTLOCKUP_DETECT=
OR
>>> is not set:
>>>
>>> kernel/watchdog.c:597:20: error: static declaration of 'lockup_detector=
_reconfigure' follows non-static declaration
>>>  static inline void lockup_detector_reconfigure(void)
>>>                     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> In file included from kernel/watchdog.c:17:
>>> ./include/linux/nmi.h:125:6: note: previous declaration of 'lockup_dete=
ctor_reconfigure' was here
>>>  void lockup_detector_reconfigure(void);
>>>       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> The definition of lockup_detector_reconfigure should be exported even in
>>> that case, and __lockup_detector_reconfigure should remain static.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 24a1260705b7 ("watchdog: export lockup_detector_reconfigure")
>>> Reported-by: Sachin Sant <sachinp@linux.ibm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>  kernel/watchdog.c | 4 ++--
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>=20
>> Thanks.
>>=20
>> I'll squash that in to the original commit.
>
> Thanks Michael,
>
> I was thinking this is too late for such a squash.

It usually would be, if I was organised, so sending a follow-up was the
correct thing for you to do :)

cheers