From: Nicholas Mc Guire <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Herbert Xu <email@example.com>
Cc: Nicholas Mc Guire <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
"David S. Miller" <email@example.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Ingo Molnar <email@example.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: camellia: add missing declarations
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 05:31:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170127053104.GB14974@osadl.at> (raw)
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:02:37PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 05:06:51PM +0100, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > Add declarations for the camellia substitution box to allow a clean build.
> > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <email@example.com>
> > ---
> > Problem reported by sparse
> > arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c:65:21: warning: symbol 'camellia_sp10011110' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c:154:21: warning: symbol 'camellia_sp22000222' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c:243:21: warning: symbol 'camellia_sp03303033' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c:332:21: warning: symbol 'camellia_sp00444404' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c:421:21: warning: symbol 'camellia_sp02220222' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c:510:21: warning: symbol 'camellia_sp30333033' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c:599:21: warning: symbol 'camellia_sp44044404' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > arch/x86/crypto/camellia_glue.c:688:21: warning: symbol 'camellia_sp11101110' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > Patch was compile tested with: x86_64_defconfig +
> > CONFIG_CRYPTO_CAMELLIA_X86_64=m
> > Patch is against 4.10-rc3 (localversion-next is next-20170116)
> This is arguably a sparse bug. These variables are only referenced
> by assembly code and already carries the __visible tag. So sparse
> should learn to suppress this warning when __visible is present.
I had assumed that __visible only would apply to LTO not to non-LTO
builds so the externally_visible attributed would not resolve this
and thus this warning seems correct.
Is this interpretation incorect ?
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-27 5:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-16 16:06 [PATCH] crypto: camellia: add missing declarations Nicholas Mc Guire
2017-01-23 14:02 ` Herbert Xu
2017-01-27 5:31 ` Nicholas Mc Guire [this message]
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).