| Message ID | 20190528090652.13288-1-yuehaibing@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [-next] lockd: Make two symbols static | expand |
Maintainers, what's the best thing to do here: fold these into another patch version and post it (add attribution)? Add it as another patch at the end of the series? I have learned my lesson: add sparse to my workflow. Ben On 28 May 2019, at 5:06, YueHaibing wrote: > Fix sparse warnings: > > fs/lockd/clntproc.c:57:6: warning: symbol 'nlmclnt_put_lockowner' was > not declared. Should it be static? > fs/lockd/svclock.c:409:35: warning: symbol 'nlmsvc_lock_ops' was not > declared. Should it be static? > > Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com> > Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com> > --- > fs/lockd/clntproc.c | 2 +- > fs/lockd/svclock.c | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/lockd/clntproc.c b/fs/lockd/clntproc.c > index 0ff8ad4..b11f2af 100644 > --- a/fs/lockd/clntproc.c > +++ b/fs/lockd/clntproc.c > @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ nlmclnt_get_lockowner(struct nlm_lockowner > *lockowner) > return lockowner; > } > > -void nlmclnt_put_lockowner(struct nlm_lockowner *lockowner) > +static void nlmclnt_put_lockowner(struct nlm_lockowner *lockowner) > { > if (!refcount_dec_and_lock(&lockowner->count, > &lockowner->host->h_lock)) > return; > diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c > index 5f9f19b..61d3cc2 100644 > --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c > +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c > @@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ static void nlmsvc_locks_release_private(struct > file_lock *fl) > nlmsvc_put_lockowner((struct nlm_lockowner *)fl->fl_owner); > } > > -const struct file_lock_operations nlmsvc_lock_ops = { > +static const struct file_lock_operations nlmsvc_lock_ops = { > .fl_copy_lock = nlmsvc_locks_copy_lock, > .fl_release_private = nlmsvc_locks_release_private, > }; > -- > 2.7.4
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 06:49:13AM -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > Maintainers, what's the best thing to do here: fold these into > another patch version and post it (add attribution)? Add it as > another patch at the end of the series? Either would be fine. Yeah, if it was folded in then we'd add a line like [hulkci@huawei.com: make symbols static to fix sparse warnings] But I'll probably just add it on to the end for now. No need for you to do anything. > I have learned my lesson: add sparse to my workflow. I dunno, I wonder if we're better off just leaving it to this CI bot. It seems like a more efficient use of time overall than making every contributor run it. --b. > Ben > > On 28 May 2019, at 5:06, YueHaibing wrote: > > >Fix sparse warnings: > > > >fs/lockd/clntproc.c:57:6: warning: symbol 'nlmclnt_put_lockowner' > >was not declared. Should it be static? > >fs/lockd/svclock.c:409:35: warning: symbol 'nlmsvc_lock_ops' was > >not declared. Should it be static? > > > >Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com> > >Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com> > >--- > > fs/lockd/clntproc.c | 2 +- > > fs/lockd/svclock.c | 2 +- > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > >diff --git a/fs/lockd/clntproc.c b/fs/lockd/clntproc.c > >index 0ff8ad4..b11f2af 100644 > >--- a/fs/lockd/clntproc.c > >+++ b/fs/lockd/clntproc.c > >@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ nlmclnt_get_lockowner(struct nlm_lockowner > >*lockowner) > > return lockowner; > > } > > > >-void nlmclnt_put_lockowner(struct nlm_lockowner *lockowner) > >+static void nlmclnt_put_lockowner(struct nlm_lockowner *lockowner) > > { > > if (!refcount_dec_and_lock(&lockowner->count, > >&lockowner->host->h_lock)) > > return; > >diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c > >index 5f9f19b..61d3cc2 100644 > >--- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c > >+++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c > >@@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ static void > >nlmsvc_locks_release_private(struct file_lock *fl) > > nlmsvc_put_lockowner((struct nlm_lockowner *)fl->fl_owner); > > } > > > >-const struct file_lock_operations nlmsvc_lock_ops = { > >+static const struct file_lock_operations nlmsvc_lock_ops = { > > .fl_copy_lock = nlmsvc_locks_copy_lock, > > .fl_release_private = nlmsvc_locks_release_private, > > }; > >-- > >2.7.4
> On May 28, 2019, at 11:13 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote: > > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 06:49:13AM -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote: >> Maintainers, what's the best thing to do here: fold these into >> another patch version and post it (add attribution)? Add it as >> another patch at the end of the series? > > Either would be fine. Yeah, if it was folded in then we'd add a line > like > > [hulkci@huawei.com: make symbols static to fix sparse warnings] > > But I'll probably just add it on to the end for now. No need for you to > do anything. > >> I have learned my lesson: add sparse to my workflow. > > I dunno, I wonder if we're better off just leaving it to this CI bot. > It seems like a more efficient use of time overall than making every > contributor run it. Occasionally sparse can catch a real problem that breaks bisectability. Better to do this kind of checking early, and ensure that you test those sparse-fixed bits. -- Chuck Lever
diff --git a/fs/lockd/clntproc.c b/fs/lockd/clntproc.c index 0ff8ad4..b11f2af 100644 --- a/fs/lockd/clntproc.c +++ b/fs/lockd/clntproc.c @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ nlmclnt_get_lockowner(struct nlm_lockowner *lockowner) return lockowner; } -void nlmclnt_put_lockowner(struct nlm_lockowner *lockowner) +static void nlmclnt_put_lockowner(struct nlm_lockowner *lockowner) { if (!refcount_dec_and_lock(&lockowner->count, &lockowner->host->h_lock)) return; diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c index 5f9f19b..61d3cc2 100644 --- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c +++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c @@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ static void nlmsvc_locks_release_private(struct file_lock *fl) nlmsvc_put_lockowner((struct nlm_lockowner *)fl->fl_owner); } -const struct file_lock_operations nlmsvc_lock_ops = { +static const struct file_lock_operations nlmsvc_lock_ops = { .fl_copy_lock = nlmsvc_locks_copy_lock, .fl_release_private = nlmsvc_locks_release_private, };
Fix sparse warnings: fs/lockd/clntproc.c:57:6: warning: symbol 'nlmclnt_put_lockowner' was not declared. Should it be static? fs/lockd/svclock.c:409:35: warning: symbol 'nlmsvc_lock_ops' was not declared. Should it be static? Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com> --- fs/lockd/clntproc.c | 2 +- fs/lockd/svclock.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)