On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 01:38:15PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? There wasn't a patch ... it was a question about the right way to fix something: http://marc.info/?l=kernel-janitors&m=125598851800338&w=2 I agree with you that we should add -Wshadow to the CFLAGS, rather than requiring sparse to find these problems. If you're dead-set on not moving this statis variable back to function-scope, then it needs to be renamed; and probably best to rename all of 'msgbuf', 'call' and 'ret' to have the same prefix. -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- 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
