On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 12:20, Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 at 19:34, Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT > > > > Why not CONFIG_PAGE_ALLOC_KUNIT_TEST? > > VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT is paired with #ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT elsewhere (I think > there might even be docs that do this in an example) so I just > followed the pattern. > > #ifdef CONFIG_KUNIT -> things are consistent and you just don't have > to think about this very much. > > #ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_ALLOC_KUNIT_TEST -> better scoping. > > So yeah, shrug. Maybe David/Rae/Brendan has an opinion. Oh, actually I rescind my shrug. If we used #ifdef CONFIG_PAGE_ALLOC_KUNIT_TEST, then -Wmissing-prototypes would fire for people running other KUnit tests. So yeah the function needs to be non-static exactly when there's a prototype in the header.
