* Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 09:59:11AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Warnings are not something that should be 'fixed' - they are just a sign
> > of some sort of trouble:
> >
> > 1- bug/limitation in the tool (Sparse)
> > 2- uncleanliness in the source code
> > 3- bug in the source code
> >
> > here it seems to be case #1, as file scope statics are perfectly fine,
> > even if used by a single function.
>
> This is case #2. We used to have:
>
> int do_one_initcall(initcall_t fn)
> {
> struct boot_trace_call call;
> }
>
> static void __init do_initcalls(void)
> {
> initcall_t *call;
> }
>
> static void __init do_pre_smp_initcalls(void)
> {
> initcall_t *call;
> }
>
> and you changed it so that the boot_trace_call is now file-scope. Now
> sparse rightfully warns about the shadow definitions in do_initcalls
> and do_pre_smp_initcalls.
Doh, right you are!
Unfortunately the discussion was not Cc:-ed to lkml so i couldnt review
the original patch and i assumed it moved the static back into function
scope.
The right fix would be to rename the variables to not be colliding. (if
we used -Wshadow like tools/perf/ does we'd have gotten this warning
from GCC too btw) Does the patch do that? Could we please Cc: patches to
lkml?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
