Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:23:22 -0800 (PST) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86: fix two sparse warnings in early boot string handling |
| |
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > > Fixes: > > > > > > arch/x86/boot/compressed/../string.c:60:14: warning: symbol 'atou' was not declared. Should it be static? > > > arch/x86/boot/string.c:133:6: warning: symbol 'strstr' was not declared. Should it be static? > > > > > > The atou one could be considered a false positive; it seems somehow > > > caused by including ./string.c from within /compressed/string.c file. > > > However git grep shows only the atou prototype and declaration, so > > > it is completely unused and we can hence delete it. > > > > > > > Declaring a prototype in a header file would be pointless if there is no > > current breakage; I don't see why you can't remove strstr() in > > arch/x86/boot/string.c entirely. What breaks? > > Explicit breakage vs. sparse warnings are two different things. It may > be that we can delete strstr() just like I did for atou() -- but in the > interest of doing the minimal change, I did just what was needed for > fixing the sparse warnings for strstr. I can test if it can be removed, > but it has the smell of generic-libc usage all over it... >
When the minimal change is to add an unnecessary prototype for a function that is not referenced, it doesn't seem acceptable.
| |