On Tue, 2021-01-26 at 10:48 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 12:20:11AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2021-01-26 at 08:01 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:52:29PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 24 Jan 2021 15:11:16 +0200 Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > +static int pci_enable_vfs_overlay(struct pci_dev *dev) { return 0; }
> > > > > +static void pci_disable_vfs_overlay(struct pci_dev *dev) {}
[]
> > $ ./scripts/checkpatch.pl -f include/linux/*.h --types=static_inline --terse --nosummary
> > include/linux/dma-mapping.h:203: WARNING: static function definition might be better as static inline
> > include/linux/genl_magic_func.h:55: WARNING: static function definition might be better as static inline
> > include/linux/genl_magic_func.h:78: WARNING: static function definition might be better as static inline
> > include/linux/kernel.h:670: WARNING: static function definition might be better as static inline
> > include/linux/kprobes.h:213: WARNING: static function definition might be better as static inline
> > include/linux/kprobes.h:231: WARNING: static function definition might be better as static inline
> > include/linux/kprobes.h:511: WARNING: static function definition might be better as static inline
> > include/linux/skb_array.h:185: WARNING: static function definition might be better as static inline
> > include/linux/slab.h:606: WARNING: static function definition might be better as static inline
> > include/linux/stop_machine.h:62: WARNING: static function definition might be better as static inline
> > include/linux/vmw_vmci_defs.h:850: WARNING: static function definition might be better as static inline
> > include/linux/zstd.h:95: WARNING: static function definition might be better as static inline
> > include/linux/zstd.h:106: WARNING: static function definition might be better as static inline
> >
> > A false positive exists when __must_check is used between
> > static and inline. It's an unusual and IMO not a preferred use.
>
> Maybe just filter and ignore such functions for now?
Not worth it.
> Will you send proper patch or do you want me to do it?
I'll do it eventually.
