Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:41:55 -0800 | From | Josh Triplett <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 19/26] drivers: isdn: Move prototype declaration to header file platform.h from diva_didd.c |
| |
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 05:22:58PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > From: Josh Triplett > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 01:33:46PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > > > From: Rashika Kheria > > > > Move prototype declarations of function to header file > > > > hardware/eicon/platform.h because they are used by more than one file. > > > > > > > > This eliminates the following warnings in hardware/eicon/diddfunc.c: > > > > drivers/isdn/hardware/eicon/diddfunc.c:95:12: warning: no previous prototype for diddfunc_init [- > > > > Wmissing-prototypes] > > > > drivers/isdn/hardware/eicon/diddfunc.c:110:13: warning: no previous prototype for diddfunc_finit > > [- > > > > Wmissing-prototypes] > > > ... > > > > diff --git a/drivers/isdn/hardware/eicon/diva_didd.c b/drivers/isdn/hardware/eicon/diva_didd.c > > > > index fab6ccf..56d32a7 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/isdn/hardware/eicon/diva_didd.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/isdn/hardware/eicon/diva_didd.c > > > > @@ -39,9 +39,6 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); > > > > #define DBG_MINIMUM (DL_LOG + DL_FTL + DL_ERR) > > > > #define DBG_DEFAULT (DBG_MINIMUM + DL_XLOG + DL_REG) > > > > > > > > -extern int diddfunc_init(void); > > > > -extern void diddfunc_finit(void); > > > > - > > > > extern void DIVA_DIDD_Read(void *, int); > > > > > > You should move that one as well. > > > There really shouldn't be 'extern' definitions for any function in > > > any C files since you want the compiler to check they are correct > > > when the function itself is compiled. > > > > Absolutely, but as far as I can tell Rashika is doing this > > incrementally, organized more by header than by source file, so I'd > > expect a few externs in a source file to disappear at a time rather than > > all in one patch. > > Unless any actual bugs are found, I'd have thought a single patch for > each driver would be enough, maybe even one for the whole lot - depending > on how they are maintained. > The 26 patches already posted are a little excessive.
These types of patches often seem to generate a non-trivial amount of feedback (for instance, due to driver-specific organizational issues), and breaking them up by groups of warnings has tended to avoid excessive churn and review difficulty on a larger patch. Certainly as a reviewer unfamiliar with isdn, I found this patch series far easier to review than a larger patch would have been.
- Josh Triplett
| |