Re: [PATCH 2/5] btrfs: Factor out loop logic from btrfs_free_extra_devids

[Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>]

On 15.07.20 г. 15:32 ч., kernel test robot wrote:
> Hi Nikolay,
> 
> Thank you for the patch! Perhaps something to improve:
> 
> [auto build test WARNING on kdave/for-next]
> [also build test WARNING on v5.8-rc5 next-20200715]
> [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
> And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
> https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch]
> 
> url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Nikolay-Borisov/Convert-seed-devices-to-proper-list-API/20200715-185102
> base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kdave/linux.git for-next
> config: x86_64-rhel-7.6-kselftests (attached as .config)
> compiler: gcc-9 (Debian 9.3.0-14) 9.3.0
> reproduce (this is a W=1 build):
>         # save the attached .config to linux build tree
>         make W=1 ARCH=x86_64 
> 
> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag as appropriate
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
> 
> All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
> 
>    In file included from fs/btrfs/volumes.c:17:
>    fs/btrfs/ctree.h:2271:8: warning: type qualifiers ignored on function return type [-Wignored-qualifiers]
>     2271 | size_t __const btrfs_get_num_csums(void);
>          |        ^~~~~~~
>    In file included from fs/btrfs/volumes.c:28:
>    fs/btrfs/sysfs.h:16:1: warning: type qualifiers ignored on function return type [-Wignored-qualifiers]
>       16 | const char * const btrfs_feature_set_name(enum btrfs_feature_set set);
>          | ^~~~~
>>> fs/btrfs/volumes.c:1029:6: warning: no previous prototype for '__btrfs_free_extra_devids' [-Wmissing-prototypes]
>     1029 | void __btrfs_free_extra_devids(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices, int step,
>          |      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> vim +/__btrfs_free_extra_devids +1029 fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> 
>   1026	
>   1027	
>   1028	
>> 1029	void __btrfs_free_extra_devids(struct btrfs_fs_devices *fs_devices, int step



This function is missing a static modifier. It shouldn't be a reason to
block review.