| Message ID | 20190627091914.30795-1-jani.nikula@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | drm/i915/irq: make i945gm_vblank_work_func() static again | expand |
Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-06-27 10:19:14) > The static keyword was apparently accidentally removed in commit > 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs"), leading to > sparse warning: > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c:3382:6: warning: symbol > 'i945gm_vblank_work_func' was not declared. Should it be static? > > Make the function static again. > > Fixes: 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs") > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> 3 people (well 2 and a robot) send patches for the same compiler warning! That means something, right? Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> -Chris
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-06-27 10:19:14) >> The static keyword was apparently accidentally removed in commit >> 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs"), leading to >> sparse warning: >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c:3382:6: warning: symbol >> 'i945gm_vblank_work_func' was not declared. Should it be static? >> >> Make the function static again. >> >> Fixes: 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs") >> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> >> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > 3 people (well 2 and a robot) send patches for the same compiler > warning! That means something, right? That writing patches is more rewarding than reading patches written by others...? ;) > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Thanks, likewise, let's see whose patch passes CI first. Looks like your patch regresses module reload. :D BR, Jani.
Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-06-27 11:26:16) > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > > Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-06-27 10:19:14) > >> The static keyword was apparently accidentally removed in commit > >> 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs"), leading to > >> sparse warning: > >> > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c:3382:6: warning: symbol > >> 'i945gm_vblank_work_func' was not declared. Should it be static? > >> > >> Make the function static again. > >> > >> Fixes: 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs") > >> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > >> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > 3 people (well 2 and a robot) send patches for the same compiler > > warning! That means something, right? > > That writing patches is more rewarding than reading patches written by > others...? ;) > > > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > Thanks, likewise, let's see whose patch passes CI first. Looks like your > patch regresses module reload. :D Now known to cibuglog, you cheat! -Chris
Quoting Chris Wilson (2019-06-27 11:28:37) > Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-06-27 11:26:16) > > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > > > Quoting Jani Nikula (2019-06-27 10:19:14) > > >> The static keyword was apparently accidentally removed in commit > > >> 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs"), leading to > > >> sparse warning: > > >> > > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c:3382:6: warning: symbol > > >> 'i945gm_vblank_work_func' was not declared. Should it be static? > > >> > > >> Make the function static again. > > >> > > >> Fixes: 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs") > > >> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> > > >> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> > > > > > > 3 people (well 2 and a robot) send patches for the same compiler > > > warning! That means something, right? > > > > That writing patches is more rewarding than reading patches written by > > others...? ;) > > > > > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> > > > > Thanks, likewise, let's see whose patch passes CI first. Looks like your > > patch regresses module reload. :D > > Now known to cibuglog, you cheat! I called it a draw and pushed both merged into one :) -Chris
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c index 1b83d6e2ae69..73f0338faf9f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c @@ -3379,7 +3379,7 @@ void bdw_disable_vblank(struct drm_crtc *crtc) spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev_priv->irq_lock, irqflags); } -void i945gm_vblank_work_func(struct work_struct *work) +static void i945gm_vblank_work_func(struct work_struct *work) { struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = container_of(work, struct drm_i915_private, i945gm_vblank.work);
The static keyword was apparently accidentally removed in commit 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs"), leading to sparse warning: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c:3382:6: warning: symbol 'i945gm_vblank_work_func' was not declared. Should it be static? Make the function static again. Fixes: 08fa8fd0faa5 ("drm/i915: Switch to per-crtc vblank vfuncs") Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)