Hi Laurentiu, On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 11:54:17 +0200 Laurentiu Tudor wrote: > > On 21.02.2020 01:57, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:37:14 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 14:01:35 -0600 Scott Wood wrote: > >>> > >>> On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 06:42 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 07:25:45 -0600 Timur Tabi wrote: > >>>>> On 1/14/20 12:31 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >>>>>> +/** > >>>>>> + * ev_byte_channel_send - send characters to a byte stream > >>>>>> + * @handle: byte stream handle > >>>>>> + * @count: (input) num of chars to send, (output) num chars sent > >>>>>> + * @bp: pointer to chars to send > >>>>>> + * > >>>>>> + * Returns 0 for success, or an error code. > >>>>>> + */ > >>>>>> +static unsigned int ev_byte_channel_send(unsigned int handle, > >>>>>> + unsigned int *count, const char *bp) > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, now you've moved this into the .c file and it is no longer > >>>>> available to other callers. Anything wrong with keeping it in the .h > >>>>> file? > >>>> > >>>> There are currently no other callers - are there likely to be in the > >>>> future? Even if there are, is it time critical enough that it needs to > >>>> be inlined everywhere? > >>> > >>> It's not performance critical and there aren't likely to be other users -- > >>> just a matter of what's cleaner. FWIW I'd rather see the original patch, > >>> that keeps the raw asm hcall stuff as simple wrappers in one place. > >> > >> And I don't mind either way :-) > >> > >> I just want to get rid of the warnings. > > > > Any progress with this? > > I think that the consensus was to pick up the original patch that is, > this one: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1220186/ > > I've tested it too, so please feel free to add a: > > Tested-by: Laurentiu Tudor So, whose tree should his go via? -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell