On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 01:32:02PM +0800, Ken Xue wrote: > On 2023/9/11 17:42, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 05:57:49PM +0800, Ken Xue wrote: ... > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > > Are you sure? > > Thanks for review. Sorry for confusion. > 2) test robot reported some compile warnings and errors detected by test > robot which is fixed in V2. Yes and that's what I'm asking about. You are not supposed to add it as the initial problem, the patch is trying to solve, has _not_ been reported by LKP, hasn't it? ... > > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309080315.txQUEyHQ-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309080239.IiC7uLpW-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202309080351.xHt2qhP2-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ > > Are you sure? > > Just some errors/warnings from the v1 patch. Same as above. ... > > > +#include <linux/acpi.h> > > There are no users of this header. > > > > Check how forward declaration can be used (as it's done in many other headers). > > > Yes, "struct acpi_device" is defined in "include/acpi/acpi_bus.h", but > include acpi_bus.h alone will lead to more compile issues. > > Regarding "forward declaration", how about > > typedef struct acpi_device *acpi_device; Is it a forward declaration? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
