On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 05:14:26PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 07:40:49PM +0200, L. Alberto Giménez wrote:
> > Fix sparse warning.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: L. Alberto Giménez <agimenez@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/ieee80211_crypt.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/ieee80211_crypt.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/ieee80211_crypt.c
> > index 5533221..3be690d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/ieee80211_crypt.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/ieee80211_crypt.c
> > @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ static struct ieee80211_crypto_ops ieee80211_crypt_null = {
> > .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > };
> >
> > -int __init ieee80211_crypto_init(void)
> > +static int __init ieee80211_crypto_init(void)
> > {
> > int ret = -ENOMEM;
>
> You obviously did not compile this change :(
>
> greg k-h
Hi Greg,
I'm very sorry for that, I swear I compiled it, but clearly I'm missing something
here.
My patch compiles with a warning, but tag v3.15 (tag where my branch is based) does
not issue this warning:
drivers/staging/rtl8192u/ieee80211/ieee80211_crypt.c:203:19: warning:
‘ieee80211_crypto_init’ defined but not used [-Wunused-function]
static int __init ieee80211_crypto_init(void)
^
I thought that __init functions could be static, is there any problem with that? Care
to shed some light here?
Thank you very much
--
L. Alberto Giménez
GnuPG key ID 0xDD4E27AB
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
