[xfs:for-next 68/70] fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c:186:1: sparse: symbol 'xfs_inobt_verify' was not declared. Should it be static?

[xfs:for-next 68/70] fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c:186:1: sparse: symbol 'xfs_inobt_verify' was not declared. Should it be static?

[kbuild test robot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 640 bytes --]

tree:   git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/xfs for-next
head:   1813dd64057490e7a0678a885c4fe6d02f78bdc1
commit: 612cfbfe174a89d565363fff7f3961a2dda5fb71 [68/70] xfs: add pre-write metadata buffer verifier callbacks


sparse warnings:

+ fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c:186:1: sparse: symbol 'xfs_inobt_verify' was not declared. Should it be static?
fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c:227:1: sparse: symbol 'xfs_inobt_read_verify' was not declared. Should it be static?

Please consider folding the attached diff :-)

---
0-DAY kernel build testing backend         Open Source Technology Center
Fengguang Wu, Yuanhan Liu                              Intel Corporation

[-- Attachment #2: make-it-static-612cfbf.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 902 bytes --]

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c
index b38a10e..6a714b5 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c
@@ -52,10 +52,10 @@
  */
 
 #ifdef DEBUG
-xfs_buftarg_t *xfs_dqerror_target;
-int xfs_do_dqerror;
-int xfs_dqreq_num;
-int xfs_dqerror_mod = 33;
+static xfs_buftarg_t *xfs_dqerror_target;
+static int xfs_do_dqerror;
+static int xfs_dqreq_num;
+static int xfs_dqerror_mod = 33;
 #endif
 
 struct kmem_zone		*xfs_qm_dqtrxzone;
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c
index 15a79f8..d60e1d5 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c
@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ xfs_inobt_key_diff(
 			  cur->bc_rec.i.ir_startino;
 }
 
-void
+static void
 xfs_inobt_verify(
 	struct xfs_buf		*bp)
 {
@@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ xfs_inobt_write_verify(
 	xfs_inobt_verify(bp);
 }
 
-void
+static void
 xfs_inobt_read_verify(
 	struct xfs_buf	*bp)
 {

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 121 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [xfs:for-next 68/70] fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c:186:1: sparse: symbol 'xfs_inobt_verify' was not declared. Should it be static?

[Dave Chinner]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 02:42:42PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> tree:   git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/xfs for-next
> head:   1813dd64057490e7a0678a885c4fe6d02f78bdc1
> commit: 612cfbfe174a89d565363fff7f3961a2dda5fb71 [68/70] xfs: add pre-write metadata buffer verifier callbacks
> 
> 
> sparse warnings:
> 
> + fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c:186:1: sparse: symbol 'xfs_inobt_verify' was not declared. Should it be static?
> fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c:227:1: sparse: symbol 'xfs_inobt_read_verify' was not declared. Should it be static?

Hi Fengguang,

For a short while these probably should be static, but they will be
externally visible soon - there are subsequent patches that will hit
3.9 require this to be available externally, so I'm not sure it's
worth fixing this right now, only to change it back again shortly.

> Please consider folding the attached diff :-)

No, because it changes more than just what the above sparse error
reports.....

> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c
> index b38a10e..6a714b5 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c
> @@ -52,10 +52,10 @@
>   */
>  
>  #ifdef DEBUG
> -xfs_buftarg_t *xfs_dqerror_target;
> -int xfs_do_dqerror;
> -int xfs_dqreq_num;
> -int xfs_dqerror_mod = 33;
> +static xfs_buftarg_t *xfs_dqerror_target;
> +static int xfs_do_dqerror;
> +static int xfs_dqreq_num;
> +static int xfs_dqerror_mod = 33;
>  #endif

These are debug build only, and intended to be globally visible so
they can be changed with a debugger. And sparse didn't warn about
them, because you didn't do a debug build, so the script shouldn't
be changing them.(*)

Cheers,

Dave.

(*) Please don't do debug XFS builds with this automated checker. We
pretty much turn all static functions to global "noinline" functions
for debug builds, and sparse will throw hundreds of useless warnings.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [xfs:for-next 68/70] fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c:186:1: sparse: symbol 'xfs_inobt_verify' was not declared. Should it be static?

[Fengguang Wu]

Hi Dave,

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:30:57AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 02:42:42PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > tree:   git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/xfs for-next
> > head:   1813dd64057490e7a0678a885c4fe6d02f78bdc1
> > commit: 612cfbfe174a89d565363fff7f3961a2dda5fb71 [68/70] xfs: add pre-write metadata buffer verifier callbacks
> > 
> > 
> > sparse warnings:
> > 
> > + fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c:186:1: sparse: symbol 'xfs_inobt_verify' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c:227:1: sparse: symbol 'xfs_inobt_read_verify' was not declared. Should it be static?
> 
> Hi Fengguang,
> 
> For a short while these probably should be static, but they will be
> externally visible soon - there are subsequent patches that will hit
> 3.9 require this to be available externally, so I'm not sure it's
> worth fixing this right now, only to change it back again shortly.

OK.

> > Please consider folding the attached diff :-)
> 
> No, because it changes more than just what the above sparse error
> reports.....

OK.

> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c
> > index b38a10e..6a714b5 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c
> > @@ -52,10 +52,10 @@
> >   */
> >  
> >  #ifdef DEBUG
> > -xfs_buftarg_t *xfs_dqerror_target;
> > -int xfs_do_dqerror;
> > -int xfs_dqreq_num;
> > -int xfs_dqerror_mod = 33;
> > +static xfs_buftarg_t *xfs_dqerror_target;
> > +static int xfs_do_dqerror;
> > +static int xfs_dqreq_num;
> > +static int xfs_dqerror_mod = 33;
> >  #endif
> 
> These are debug build only, and intended to be globally visible so
> they can be changed with a debugger. And sparse didn't warn about
> them, because you didn't do a debug build, so the script shouldn't
> be changing them.(*)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> 
> (*) Please don't do debug XFS builds with this automated checker. We
> pretty much turn all static functions to global "noinline" functions
> for debug builds, and sparse will throw hundreds of useless warnings.

Dave, thanks for the explanations. And sorry for the noises!  
I'll disable the "Should it be static" checks against the xfs tree.

Thanks,
Fengguang

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: [xfs:for-next 68/70] fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c:186:1: sparse: symbol 'xfs_inobt_verify' was not declared. Should it be static?

[Dave Chinner]

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:02:17PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 10:30:57AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 02:42:42PM +0800, kbuild test robot wrote:
> > > tree:   git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/xfs for-next
> > > head:   1813dd64057490e7a0678a885c4fe6d02f78bdc1
> > > commit: 612cfbfe174a89d565363fff7f3961a2dda5fb71 [68/70] xfs: add pre-write metadata buffer verifier callbacks
> > > 
> > > 
> > > sparse warnings:
> > > 
> > > + fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c:186:1: sparse: symbol 'xfs_inobt_verify' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc_btree.c:227:1: sparse: symbol 'xfs_inobt_read_verify' was not declared. Should it be static?
....
> > 
> > These are debug build only, and intended to be globally visible so
> > they can be changed with a debugger. And sparse didn't warn about
> > them, because you didn't do a debug build, so the script shouldn't
> > be changing them.(*)
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Dave.
> > 
> > (*) Please don't do debug XFS builds with this automated checker. We
> > pretty much turn all static functions to global "noinline" functions
> > for debug builds, and sparse will throw hundreds of useless warnings.
> 
> Dave, thanks for the explanations. And sorry for the noises!  
> I'll disable the "Should it be static" checks against the xfs tree.

I didn't say that - I'm suggesting that you should be more selective
about what the bot throws out as a fix. i.e. only fix the newly
discovered problem rather than everything that is found....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs