Maintainers, what's the best thing to do here: fold these into another
patch version and post it (add attribution)? Add it as another patch at
the end of the series?
I have learned my lesson: add sparse to my workflow.
Ben
On 28 May 2019, at 5:06, YueHaibing wrote:
Fix sparse warnings:
fs/lockd/clntproc.c:57:6: warning: symbol 'nlmclnt_put_lockowner' was
not declared. Should it be static?
fs/lockd/svclock.c:409:35: warning: symbol 'nlmsvc_lock_ops' was not
declared. Should it be static?
Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/lockd/clntproc.c | 2 +-
fs/lockd/svclock.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/lockd/clntproc.c b/fs/lockd/clntproc.c
index 0ff8ad4..b11f2af 100644
--- a/fs/lockd/clntproc.c
+++ b/fs/lockd/clntproc.c
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ nlmclnt_get_lockowner(struct nlm_lockowner
*lockowner)
return lockowner;
}
-void nlmclnt_put_lockowner(struct nlm_lockowner *lockowner)
+static void nlmclnt_put_lockowner(struct nlm_lockowner *lockowner)
{
if (!refcount_dec_and_lock(&lockowner->count,
&lockowner->host->h_lock))
return;
diff --git a/fs/lockd/svclock.c b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
index 5f9f19b..61d3cc2 100644
--- a/fs/lockd/svclock.c
+++ b/fs/lockd/svclock.c
@@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ static void nlmsvc_locks_release_private(struct
file_lock *fl)
nlmsvc_put_lockowner((struct nlm_lockowner *)fl->fl_owner);
}
-const struct file_lock_operations nlmsvc_lock_ops = {
+static const struct file_lock_operations nlmsvc_lock_ops = {
.fl_copy_lock = nlmsvc_locks_copy_lock,
.fl_release_private = nlmsvc_locks_release_private,
};
--
2.7.4
