On 06/29/2020 04:38 PM, kernel test robot wrote: > Hi Anshuman, > > Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve: > > [auto build test WARNING on v5.8-rc3] > [also build test WARNING on next-20200629] > [cannot apply to arm64/for-next/core] > [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note. > And when submitting patch, we suggest to use as documented in > https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch] > > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Anshuman-Khandual/arm64-hugetlb-Reserve-CMA-areas-for-gigantic-pages-on-16K-and-64K-configs/20200629-144736 > base: 9ebcfadb0610322ac537dd7aa5d9cbc2b2894c68 > config: arm64-defconfig (attached as .config) > compiler: aarch64-linux-gcc (GCC) 9.3.0 > reproduce (this is a W=1 build): > wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross > chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross > # save the attached .config to linux build tree > COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=gcc-9.3.0 make.cross ARCH=arm64 > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > > All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): > >>> arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c:40:13: warning: no previous prototype for 'arm64_hugetlb_cma_reserve' [-Wmissing-prototypes] > 40 | void __init arm64_hugetlb_cma_reserve(void) > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This only comes up with W=1 and I wonder if this is truly a valid warning. Should all non-static function needs to have a declaration in a header file ? In this case, there is a declaration for this function near the call site itself, why should not that be sufficient. #if defined(CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE) && defined(CONFIG_CMA) void arm64_hugetlb_cma_reserve(void); <--------- Declaration #else static inline void arm64_hugetlb_cma_reserve(void) { } #endif
