lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch 1/3] m68k/mac: Make mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons() declaration visible
    On 7/20/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
    > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 02:51:02PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
    > > On 7/20/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
    > >> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 01:47:36PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
    > >> > Hi Geert,
    > >> >
    > >> > On 7/20/07, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
    > >> >> From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
    > >> >>
    > >> >> m68k/mac: Make mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons() declaration visible
    > >> >>
    > >> >> drivers/char/keyboard.c: In function 'kbd_keycode':
    > >> >> drivers/char/keyboard.c:1142: error: implicit declaration of function
    > >> >> 'mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons'
    > >> >>
    > >> >> The forward declaration of mac_hid_mouse_emulate_buttons() is not
    > >> visible
    > >> >> on
    > >> >> m68k because it's hidden in the middle of a big #ifdef block.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Move it to <linux/hid.h>, correct the type of the second parameter, and
    > >> >> include <linux/hid.h> where needed.
    > >> >
    > >> > linux/hid.h contains definitions needed for drivers speaking HID
    > >> > protocol, I don't think we want to put quirks for legacy keyboard
    > >> > driver there. I'd just move the #ifdef within drivers/char/keyboard.c
    > >> > for now.
    > >> >...
    > >>
    > >> If you only move it you will keep the bug of the wrong second parameter.
    > >>
    > >> But if you move it to any header file gcc is able to figure out such
    > >> errors itself instead of them being nasty runtime errors.
    > >>
    > >> Such prototypes in C files are really bad since (like in this case) they
    > >> prevent the finding of bugs. It doesn't matter which header file you put
    > >> the prototype into (it can even be a new one), but it belongs into a
    > >> header file.
    > >
    > > I am OK with adding a new header file. I was just saying that placing
    > > that declaration in linux/hid.h makes about the same sense as putting
    > > it into linux/scsi.h
    >
    > scsi.h would also be fine with me. ;-)
    >
    > Are you making a patch or should I send one? [1]
    >

    If you send one I'll gladly take it ;)

    --
    Dmitry
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-07-20 21:33    [W:0.055 / U:37.224 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site