Hello Andrii,
On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 7:08 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 12:37 PM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 11:17 PM Alexei Starovoitov
> > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 9:55 PM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Jason Xing <kernelxing@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > In some environments (gcc treated as error in W=1, which is default), if we
> > > > make -C samples/bpf/, it will be stopped because of
> > > > "no previous prototype" error like this:
> > > >
> > > > ../samples/bpf/syscall_nrs.c:7:6:
> > > > error: no previous prototype for ‘syscall_defines’ [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
> > > > void syscall_defines(void)
> > > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > samples/bpf/ doesn't accept patches any more.
> > > If this samples/test is useful, refactor it to the test_progs framework.
> > > Otherwise delete it.
> > >
> > > pw-bot: cr
> >
> > After reconsidering what Alexei said, I still feel we could take this
> > patch? It is because:
> > 1) the patch itself is more of a fix instead of optimization,
> > 2)as long as samples/bpf exists in the kernel, we cannot easily let
> > it(issues) go and ignore it.
> >
> > Applying such a patch won't cause any further confusion, right? As we
> > can see, it's like a fix which does not introduce anything new here.
> >
> > What do you bpf maintainers think?
>
> I think it's fine to minimally fix the issue in samples/bpf, but I
> don't think this weirdly-looking extra declaration is the best fix.
Thanks for your reply.
>
> Can you mark that function static? Will that work?
Not really, it will print:
samples/bpf/syscall_nrs.c:7:13: error: ‘syscall_defines’ defined but
not used [-Werror=unused-function]
static void syscall_defines(void)
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> Or, as a plan B,
> use pragma to disable this warning, it's clearly "expected" in this
> case.
Yes, I admit the use in this function is "expected" like you said
because this file will be converted into a .h file. Could you kindly
show me more hints on how to disable the warning when compiling? I
tried to remove something like "-Wmissing-prototypes", but the warning
still happens.
Thanks,
Jason
