[PATCH -next] livepatch: Make klp_apply_object_relocs static

[PATCH -next] livepatch: Make klp_apply_object_relocs static

[Samuel Zou]

Fix the following sparse warning:

kernel/livepatch/core.c:748:5: warning: symbol 'klp_apply_object_relocs'
was not declared. Should it be static?

Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Samuel Zou <zou_wei@huawei.com>
---
 kernel/livepatch/core.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/core.c b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
index 96d2da1..f76fdb9 100644
--- a/kernel/livepatch/core.c
+++ b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
@@ -745,7 +745,8 @@ static int klp_init_func(struct klp_object *obj, struct klp_func *func)
 			   func->old_sympos ? func->old_sympos : 1);
 }
 
-int klp_apply_object_relocs(struct klp_patch *patch, struct klp_object *obj)
+static int klp_apply_object_relocs(struct klp_patch *patch,
+				   struct klp_object *obj)
 {
 	int i, ret;
 	struct klp_modinfo *info = patch->mod->klp_info;
-- 
2.6.2

Re: [PATCH -next] livepatch: Make klp_apply_object_relocs static

[Kamalesh Babulal]

On 5/8/20 5:36 PM, Samuel Zou wrote:
> Fix the following sparse warning:
> 
> kernel/livepatch/core.c:748:5: warning: symbol 'klp_apply_object_relocs'
> was not declared. Should it be static?
> 
> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Samuel Zou <zou_wei@huawei.com>

LGTM, klp_apply_object_relocs() has only one call site within core.c

Reviewed-by: Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

> ---
>  kernel/livepatch/core.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/livepatch/core.c b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> index 96d2da1..f76fdb9 100644
> --- a/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/livepatch/core.c
> @@ -745,7 +745,8 @@ static int klp_init_func(struct klp_object *obj, struct klp_func *func)
>  			   func->old_sympos ? func->old_sympos : 1);
>  }
> 
> -int klp_apply_object_relocs(struct klp_patch *patch, struct klp_object *obj)
> +static int klp_apply_object_relocs(struct klp_patch *patch,
> +				   struct klp_object *obj)
>  {
>  	int i, ret;
>  	struct klp_modinfo *info = patch->mod->klp_info;
> 

Re: [PATCH -next] livepatch: Make klp_apply_object_relocs static

[Josh Poimboeuf]

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 08:06:34PM +0800, Samuel Zou wrote:
> Fix the following sparse warning:
> 
> kernel/livepatch/core.c:748:5: warning: symbol 'klp_apply_object_relocs'
> was not declared. Should it be static?

Yes, it should :-)

So instead of the question, the patch description should probably state
that it should be static because its only caller is in the file.

With that change:

Acked-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>

-- 
Josh

Re: [PATCH -next] livepatch: Make klp_apply_object_relocs static

[Josh Poimboeuf]

On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 10:53:41AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 08:06:34PM +0800, Samuel Zou wrote:
> > Fix the following sparse warning:
> > 
> > kernel/livepatch/core.c:748:5: warning: symbol 'klp_apply_object_relocs'
> > was not declared. Should it be static?
> 
> Yes, it should :-)
> 
> So instead of the question, the patch description should probably state
> that it should be static because its only caller is in the file.

... and it probably should also have a Fixes tag which references the
commit which introduced this issue.

> With that change:
> 
> Acked-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>

-- 
Josh

Re: [PATCH -next] livepatch: Make klp_apply_object_relocs static

[Samuel Zou]

Hi Josh,

Thanks for your review and reply.

Yes, I just copied and pasted the warning message, so I brought a 
question mark.

I will modify the description and add the fixes tag which introduced the 
issue, then will send the v2 soon.

On 2020/5/8 23:55, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 10:53:41AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 08:06:34PM +0800, Samuel Zou wrote:
>>> Fix the following sparse warning:
>>>
>>> kernel/livepatch/core.c:748:5: warning: symbol 'klp_apply_object_relocs'
>>> was not declared. Should it be static?
>>
>> Yes, it should :-)
>>
>> So instead of the question, the patch description should probably state
>> that it should be static because its only caller is in the file.
> 
> ... and it probably should also have a Fixes tag which references the
> commit which introduced this issue.
> 
>> With that change:
>>
>> Acked-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
>