| Message ID | 20200130181330.GY3447196@magnolia (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | xfsprogs: random fixes | expand |
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:13:30AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> > > Remove these function declarations since they're in libxfs/xfs_attr.h > and are therefore redundant. Looks fine - in fact I have these removals in my attr series, just piecemail.. Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
On 1/30/20 12:13 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> > > Remove these function declarations since they're in libxfs/xfs_attr.h > and are therefore redundant. > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> Is it worth keeping this exporting hack around to make static checkers happy if it's just one more thing to keep up to date in userspace? -Eric
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:28:43PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 1/30/20 12:13 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> > > > > Remove these function declarations since they're in libxfs/xfs_attr.h > > and are therefore redundant. > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> > > Is it worth keeping this exporting hack around to make static checkers > happy if it's just one more thing to keep up to date in userspace? Probably? It depends on how much you like culling known false positives when you run smatch/sparse against xfsprogs. (I for one don't mind not having to remember that stuff...) --D > -Eric
On 1/30/20 12:40 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 12:28:43PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 1/30/20 12:13 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >>> From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> >>> >>> Remove these function declarations since they're in libxfs/xfs_attr.h >>> and are therefore redundant. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> >> >> Is it worth keeping this exporting hack around to make static checkers >> happy if it's just one more thing to keep up to date in userspace? > > Probably? It depends on how much you like culling known false positives > when you run smatch/sparse against xfsprogs. > > (I for one don't mind not having to remember that stuff...) Ok. I'm wondering how you guys happened to notice the dups. Seems like bool xfs_verify_rtbno(struct xfs_mount *mp, xfs_rtblock_t rtbno); can be removed as well, FWIW. -Eric
diff --git a/libxfs/libxfs_priv.h b/libxfs/libxfs_priv.h index 03edf0d3..fe08f96b 100644 --- a/libxfs/libxfs_priv.h +++ b/libxfs/libxfs_priv.h @@ -607,14 +607,6 @@ static inline int test_and_set_bit(int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr) } /* Keep static checkers quiet about nonstatic functions by exporting */ -int xfs_inode_hasattr(struct xfs_inode *ip); -int xfs_attr_get_ilocked(struct xfs_inode *ip, struct xfs_da_args *args); -int xfs_attr_get(struct xfs_inode *ip, const unsigned char *name, - unsigned char **value, int *valuelenp, int flags); -int xfs_attr_set(struct xfs_inode *dp, const unsigned char *name, - unsigned char *value, int valuelen, int flags); -int xfs_attr_remove(struct xfs_inode *dp, const unsigned char *name, int flags); - int xfs_rtbuf_get(struct xfs_mount *mp, struct xfs_trans *tp, xfs_rtblock_t block, int issum, struct xfs_buf **bpp); int xfs_rtcheck_range(struct xfs_mount *mp, struct xfs_trans *tp,