On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 05:32:27PM -0600, Shaun Laing wrote: > Hello -- what are your thoughts on this patch? SBE_INCLUDE_SYMBOLS came out > easily... too easily really. Was it there on purpose? > Yeah. It's unfortunately a common thing. :/ I'm not sure how it is useful. > > Removed the unused SBE_INCLUDE_SYMBOLS #define, and the associated STATIC > #define, and replaced all occurances of STATIC with 'static'. This was in > response to sparse warnings of the form "symbol 'XYZ' was not declared. Should > it be static?". > It is unneeded but it's not unused, it's always defined for everything. When SBE_INCLUDE_SYMBOLS is defined it makes the STATIC disappear. > Also had to add #ifdef around a function prototype as the 'static' declaration > produced a new gcc warning, as the actual function was not defined. The function is defined, of course, as you know. The forward declaration isn't needed. Just remove it instead of adding the ifdef. Looks good, though. Could you tweak the changelog, and remove the prototype and resend? regards, dan carpenter -- 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
