On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 03:43:48PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 12:36 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:27:08AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > The first time I compiled it, I forgot the ';' and got a warning there. > > > But the warning also included "declaring structure softirq_action in > > > prototype", so I fixed both the ';' and added the struct. I can try > > > compile without it. But I also know that adding #include <interrupt.h> > > > in rcupreempt.h caused issues too. > > > > If I leave out both the "struct softirq_action" and the > > rcu_process_callbacks() declaration,, it compiles for me. > > > > So I guess the rcu_process_callbacks() should be declared static... > > OK, I can update the patch to reflect that. Remember, I didn't learn > anything from doing this patch, so I have no idea why > rcu_procell_callbacks was global. I was just keeping to the norm. :-) Hey, -I- learned something from your doing the patch -- namely that rcu_process_callbacks() was needlessly non-static. ;-) > Actually, I'll make a separate patch for this change. This is a > different issue. Sounds good! Thanx, Paul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
