On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 03:25:36PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote: > tree: git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/xfs for-next > head: 1813dd64057490e7a0678a885c4fe6d02f78bdc1 > commit: 1813dd64057490e7a0678a885c4fe6d02f78bdc1 [70/70] xfs: convert buffer verifiers to an ops structure. > > > sparse warnings: > > + fs/xfs/xfs_da_btree.c:153:26: sparse: symbol 'xfs_da_node_buf_ops' was not declared. Should it be static? > -- > + fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_leaf.c:82:1: sparse: symbol 'xfs_dir2_leafn_read_verify' was not declared. Should it be static? > + fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_leaf.c:89:1: sparse: symbol 'xfs_dir2_leafn_write_verify' was not declared. Should it be static? > -- > fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c:55:15: sparse: symbol 'xfs_dqerror_target' was not declared. Should it be static? > fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c:56:5: sparse: symbol 'xfs_do_dqerror' was not declared. Should it be static? > fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c:57:5: sparse: symbol 'xfs_dqreq_num' was not declared. Should it be static? > fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c:58:5: sparse: symbol 'xfs_dqerror_mod' was not declared. Should it be static? > + fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c:294:1: sparse: symbol 'xfs_dquot_buf_write_verify' was not declared. Should it be static? > > Please consider folding the attached diff :-) No, for the same reason as the last one. Though I'll fix the new ones (the read/write verifier functions) as they should now be static as a separate patch. > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c > index 0e92d12..3216738 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c > @@ -4180,7 +4180,7 @@ error0: > /* > * Add bmap trace insert entries for all the contents of the extent records. > */ > -void > +static void > xfs_bmap_trace_exlist( > xfs_inode_t *ip, /* incore inode pointer */ > xfs_extnum_t cnt, /* count of entries in the list */ And, again, there are lots of changes in this that are unrelated to the patch. In this case, the change is plain wrong. It's a debug only function, called via the macro XFS_BMAP_TRACE_EXLIST: $ git grep XFS_BMAP_TRACE_EXLIST fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c: XFS_BMAP_TRACE_EXLIST(ip, i, whichfork); fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.h:#define XFS_BMAP_TRACE_EXLIST(ip,c,w) \ fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.h:#define XFS_BMAP_TRACE_EXLIST(ip,c,w) fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c: XFS_BMAP_TRACE_EXLIST(ip, nex, whichfork); fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c: XFS_BMAP_TRACE_EXLIST(ip, nrecs, whichfork); And so it clearly needs to be non-static. If you are going throw commit-by-commit build warnings and patches to fix them, please only include the fixes for the *new* warnings generated by a single commit, not an aggregate of everything that is found. For that reason, I think I'd prefer it if your build bot just sent build warnings, not patches. FWIW, what happens when a problem is fixed by a later patch in the tree in the same push? Do you still throw a mail out to the list? i.e. are you culling spurious warning detections? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
