On Sat, 10 Apr 2021, at 04:56, Zev Weiss wrote: > On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 01:25:26AM CDT, Zev Weiss wrote: > >On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 12:59:09AM CDT, Andrew Jeffery wrote: > >>On Fri, 9 Apr 2021, at 13:27, Zev Weiss wrote: > >>>On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 01:27:41AM CDT, Andrew Jeffery wrote: > >>>>-struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc_ipmi_alloc(struct device *dev, int sizeof_priv, u32 channel); > >>>>-struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc_ipmi_alloc(struct device *dev, int sizeof_priv, u32 channel) > >>>>+int kcs_bmc_ipmi_attach_cdev(struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc); > >>> > >>>Errant declaration again? > >> > >>As previously explained. > >> > > > >This one seems like a slightly different category, because... > > > >>> > >>>>+int kcs_bmc_ipmi_attach_cdev(struct kcs_bmc *kcs_bmc) > > > >...it's immediately followed by the definition of the very same function > >that it just declared, so I can't see how its presence or absence could > >make any functional difference to anything. (So perhaps I should have > >said "redundant" instead of "errant...again".) This is is a small hack to fend off warnings from -Wmissing-declarations. > > > >It's fairly trivial of course given that it's gone by the end of the > >series, but as long as there's going to be another iteration anyway it > >seems like we might as well tidy it up? > > > > Oh, and otherwise: > > Reviewed-by: Zev Weiss <zweiss@xxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks. Andrew
