[PATCH] IPVS: ip_vs_sync.c: local functions should not be exposed globally

[PATCH] IPVS: ip_vs_sync.c: local functions should not be exposed globally

[H Hartley Sweeten]

Functions not referenced outside of a source file should be marked
static to prevent it from being exposed globally.

This quiets the sparse warnings:

warning: symbol 'ip_vs_sync_conn_v0' was not declared. Should it be static?

Signed-off-by: H Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@visionengravers.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>

---

diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
index bf5e538..49a1fe8 100644
--- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
+++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
@@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ ip_vs_sync_buff_create_v0(struct netns_ipvs *ipvs)
  *      Version 0 , could be switched in by sys_ctl.
  *      Add an ip_vs_conn information into the current sync_buff.
  */
-void ip_vs_sync_conn_v0(struct net *net, struct ip_vs_conn *cp)
+static void ip_vs_sync_conn_v0(struct net *net, struct ip_vs_conn *cp)
 {
 	struct netns_ipvs *ipvs = net_ipvs(net);
 	struct ip_vs_sync_mesg_v0 *m;

Re: [PATCH] IPVS: ip_vs_sync.c: local functions should not be exposed globally

[Julian Anastasov]

	Hello,

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:

> Functions not referenced outside of a source file should be marked
> static to prevent it from being exposed globally.
> 
> This quiets the sparse warnings:
> 
> warning: symbol 'ip_vs_sync_conn_v0' was not declared. Should it be static?
> 
> Signed-off-by: H Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@visionengravers.com>
> Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
> 
> ---
> 
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> index bf5e538..49a1fe8 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ ip_vs_sync_buff_create_v0(struct netns_ipvs *ipvs)
>   *      Version 0 , could be switched in by sys_ctl.
>   *      Add an ip_vs_conn information into the current sync_buff.
>   */
> -void ip_vs_sync_conn_v0(struct net *net, struct ip_vs_conn *cp)
> +static void ip_vs_sync_conn_v0(struct net *net, struct ip_vs_conn *cp)

	The 3 patches for IPVS look correct but this change
is already not needed after one of our planned changes:

"ipvs: reduce sync rate with time thresholds"

	Not sure how we will avoid the collision, may be
Simon will take only the other 2 changes? Or David will
take all changes and we have to rebase?

>  {
>  	struct netns_ipvs *ipvs = net_ipvs(net);
>  	struct ip_vs_sync_mesg_v0 *m;
> --

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>

Re: [PATCH] IPVS: ip_vs_sync.c: local functions should not be exposed globally

[Simon Horman]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:11:54PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> 
> 	Hello,
> 
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
> 
> > Functions not referenced outside of a source file should be marked
> > static to prevent it from being exposed globally.
> > 
> > This quiets the sparse warnings:
> > 
> > warning: symbol 'ip_vs_sync_conn_v0' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: H Hartley Sweeten <hsweeten@visionengravers.com>
> > Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> > index bf5e538..49a1fe8 100644
> > --- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> > +++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_sync.c
> > @@ -446,7 +446,7 @@ ip_vs_sync_buff_create_v0(struct netns_ipvs *ipvs)
> >   *      Version 0 , could be switched in by sys_ctl.
> >   *      Add an ip_vs_conn information into the current sync_buff.
> >   */
> > -void ip_vs_sync_conn_v0(struct net *net, struct ip_vs_conn *cp)
> > +static void ip_vs_sync_conn_v0(struct net *net, struct ip_vs_conn *cp)
> 
> 	The 3 patches for IPVS look correct but this change
> is already not needed after one of our planned changes:
> 
> "ipvs: reduce sync rate with time thresholds"
> 
> 	Not sure how we will avoid the collision, may be
> Simon will take only the other 2 changes? Or David will
> take all changes and we have to rebase?

I think the best way forwards is for me to take only the first two changes.

I don't think that this fix is 3.4 material and as you say we expect this
problem to be resolved by other means in 3.5.

I am of course open to discussion on this.