On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 07:49:52PM +0530, Souptick Joarder wrote: > Otherwise it cause gcc warning: > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That line is just confusing. > ../mm/filemap.c:830:14: warning: no previous prototype for > ‘__add_to_page_cache_locked’ [-Wmissing-prototypes] > noinline int __add_to_page_cache_locked(struct page *page, > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And I don't think those two lines add much value, do you? > A previous attempt to make this function static leads to > compile error for few architectures. It might be better to say why it has to be non-static here (because it's an error injection point). And it's not architecture dependent (afaik), it's whether error injection is enabled in the config. > Adding a prototype will silence the warning. > > Signed-off-by: Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > include/linux/mm.h | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h > index 5299b90a..ac07f65 100644 > --- a/include/linux/mm.h > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h > @@ -216,6 +216,12 @@ int overcommit_kbytes_handler(struct ctl_table *, int, void *, size_t *, > loff_t *); > int overcommit_policy_handler(struct ctl_table *, int, void *, size_t *, > loff_t *); > +/* > + * Any attempt to mark this function as static leads to build failure > + * for few architectures. Adding a prototype to silence gcc warning. > + */ We don't need a comment here for this. The commit log is enough. > +int __add_to_page_cache_locked(struct page *page, struct address_space *mapping, > + pgoff_t offset, gfp_t gfp, void **shadowp); Please name that 'index', not 'offset'.
