* [PATCH RFC] x86, boot: add missing declaration of string functions
@ 2016-12-23 10:01 Nicholas Mc Guire
2017-01-05 8:02 ` Ingo Molnar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nicholas Mc Guire @ 2016-12-23 10:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, x86, linux-kernel, Nicholas Mc Guire
Add the missing declarations of basic string functions to string.h to allow
a clean build.
Fixes: commit 5be865661516 ("String-handling functions for the new x86 setup code.")
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
---
sparse issues a set of warnings about missing declarations:
arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:18:5: warning: symbol 'memcmp' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:26:5: warning: symbol 'strcmp' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:42:5: warning: symbol 'strncmp' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:58:8: warning: symbol 'strnlen' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:69:14: warning: symbol 'atou' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:99:20: warning: symbol 'simple_strtoull' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:128:8: warning: symbol 'strlen' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:142:6: warning: symbol 'strstr' was not declared. Should it be static?
This patch has one checkpatch warning about the use of simple_strtoul which
is obsolete. As this is an independent implementation it is not clear if
the changes made in simple_strtoul -> _kstrtoull might also need to be
applied here ?
Patch was compile tested with: x86_64_defconfig
Patch is against 4.9.0 (localversion-next is next-20161223)
arch/x86/boot/string.c | 1 +
arch/x86/boot/string.h | 9 +++++++++
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/string.c b/arch/x86/boot/string.c
index cc3bd58..9e240fc 100644
--- a/arch/x86/boot/string.c
+++ b/arch/x86/boot/string.c
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
#include <linux/types.h>
#include "ctype.h"
+#include "string.h"
int memcmp(const void *s1, const void *s2, size_t len)
{
diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/string.h b/arch/x86/boot/string.h
index 725e820..f6ee139 100644
--- a/arch/x86/boot/string.h
+++ b/arch/x86/boot/string.h
@@ -18,4 +18,13 @@ int memcmp(const void *s1, const void *s2, size_t len);
#define memset(d,c,l) __builtin_memset(d,c,l)
#define memcmp __builtin_memcmp
+int strcmp(const char *str1, const char *str2);
+int strncmp(const char *cs, const char *ct, size_t count);
+size_t strlen(const char *s);
+char *strstr(const char *s1, const char *s2);
+size_t strnlen(const char *s, size_t maxlen);
+unsigned int atou(const char *s);
+unsigned long long simple_strtoull(const char *cp,
+ char **endp, unsigned int base);
+
#endif /* BOOT_STRING_H */
--
2.1.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RFC] x86, boot: add missing declaration of string functions
2016-12-23 10:01 [PATCH RFC] x86, boot: add missing declaration of string functions Nicholas Mc Guire
@ 2017-01-05 8:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-01-07 9:37 ` Nicholas Mc Guire
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2017-01-05 8:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nicholas Mc Guire
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, x86, linux-kernel
* Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org> wrote:
> Add the missing declarations of basic string functions to string.h to allow
> a clean build.
>
> Fixes: commit 5be865661516 ("String-handling functions for the new x86 setup code.")
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
> ---
>
> sparse issues a set of warnings about missing declarations:
> arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:18:5: warning: symbol 'memcmp' was not declared. Should it be static?
> arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:26:5: warning: symbol 'strcmp' was not declared. Should it be static?
> arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:42:5: warning: symbol 'strncmp' was not declared. Should it be static?
> arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:58:8: warning: symbol 'strnlen' was not declared. Should it be static?
> arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:69:14: warning: symbol 'atou' was not declared. Should it be static?
> arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:99:20: warning: symbol 'simple_strtoull' was not declared. Should it be static?
> arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:128:8: warning: symbol 'strlen' was not declared. Should it be static?
> arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:142:6: warning: symbol 'strstr' was not declared. Should it be static?
>
> This patch has one checkpatch warning about the use of simple_strtoul which
> is obsolete. As this is an independent implementation it is not clear if
> the changes made in simple_strtoul -> _kstrtoull might also need to be
> applied here ?
>
> Patch was compile tested with: x86_64_defconfig
>
> Patch is against 4.9.0 (localversion-next is next-20161223)
>
> arch/x86/boot/string.c | 1 +
> arch/x86/boot/string.h | 9 +++++++++
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/string.c b/arch/x86/boot/string.c
> index cc3bd58..9e240fc 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/boot/string.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/boot/string.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>
> #include <linux/types.h>
> #include "ctype.h"
> +#include "string.h"
>
> int memcmp(const void *s1, const void *s2, size_t len)
> {
> diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/string.h b/arch/x86/boot/string.h
> index 725e820..f6ee139 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/boot/string.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/boot/string.h
> @@ -18,4 +18,13 @@ int memcmp(const void *s1, const void *s2, size_t len);
> #define memset(d,c,l) __builtin_memset(d,c,l)
> #define memcmp __builtin_memcmp
>
> +int strcmp(const char *str1, const char *str2);
> +int strncmp(const char *cs, const char *ct, size_t count);
> +size_t strlen(const char *s);
> +char *strstr(const char *s1, const char *s2);
> +size_t strnlen(const char *s, size_t maxlen);
> +unsigned int atou(const char *s);
> +unsigned long long simple_strtoull(const char *cp,
> + char **endp, unsigned int base);
Looks good to me, but please also mark them 'extern' to highlight the API
declarations like the rest of the kernel does - such as kernel.h which has
the kernel's simple_strtoull() declaration, etc.
It's not required syntactically, but it's a good stylistic principle to keep
external APIs organized.
Thanks,
Ingo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RFC] x86, boot: add missing declaration of string functions
2017-01-05 8:02 ` Ingo Molnar
@ 2017-01-07 9:37 ` Nicholas Mc Guire
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nicholas Mc Guire @ 2017-01-07 9:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Nicholas Mc Guire, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin,
Joe Perches, x86, linux-kernel
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 09:02:09AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org> wrote:
>
> > Add the missing declarations of basic string functions to string.h to allow
> > a clean build.
> >
> > Fixes: commit 5be865661516 ("String-handling functions for the new x86 setup code.")
> > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
> > ---
> >
> > sparse issues a set of warnings about missing declarations:
> > arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:18:5: warning: symbol 'memcmp' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:26:5: warning: symbol 'strcmp' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:42:5: warning: symbol 'strncmp' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:58:8: warning: symbol 'strnlen' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:69:14: warning: symbol 'atou' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:99:20: warning: symbol 'simple_strtoull' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:128:8: warning: symbol 'strlen' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > arch/x86/purgatory/../boot/string.c:142:6: warning: symbol 'strstr' was not declared. Should it be static?
> >
> > This patch has one checkpatch warning about the use of simple_strtoul which
> > is obsolete. As this is an independent implementation it is not clear if
> > the changes made in simple_strtoul -> _kstrtoull might also need to be
> > applied here ?
> >
> > Patch was compile tested with: x86_64_defconfig
> >
> > Patch is against 4.9.0 (localversion-next is next-20161223)
> >
> > arch/x86/boot/string.c | 1 +
> > arch/x86/boot/string.h | 9 +++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/string.c b/arch/x86/boot/string.c
> > index cc3bd58..9e240fc 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/boot/string.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/string.c
> > @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> >
> > #include <linux/types.h>
> > #include "ctype.h"
> > +#include "string.h"
> >
> > int memcmp(const void *s1, const void *s2, size_t len)
> > {
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/string.h b/arch/x86/boot/string.h
> > index 725e820..f6ee139 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/boot/string.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/string.h
> > @@ -18,4 +18,13 @@ int memcmp(const void *s1, const void *s2, size_t len);
> > #define memset(d,c,l) __builtin_memset(d,c,l)
> > #define memcmp __builtin_memcmp
> >
> > +int strcmp(const char *str1, const char *str2);
> > +int strncmp(const char *cs, const char *ct, size_t count);
> > +size_t strlen(const char *s);
> > +char *strstr(const char *s1, const char *s2);
> > +size_t strnlen(const char *s, size_t maxlen);
> > +unsigned int atou(const char *s);
> > +unsigned long long simple_strtoull(const char *cp,
> > + char **endp, unsigned int base);
>
> Looks good to me, but please also mark them 'extern' to highlight the API
> declarations like the rest of the kernel does - such as kernel.h which has
> the kernel's simple_strtoull() declaration, etc.
>
> It's not required syntactically, but it's a good stylistic principle to keep
> external APIs organized.
>
thanks - added the externs and resent as V2
while this does looks consistent with other kernel header files now
checkpatch --strict will issue CHECK requests of the form:
"CHECK: extern prototypes should be avoided in .h files"
so I just wonder if this CHECK is actually consistent with coding practice ?
the argument in commit 70dc8a48357c ("checkpatch: warn when using extern with function prototypes in .h files")
being:
<snip>
Using the extern keyword on function prototypes is superfluous visual
noise so suggest removing it.
Using extern can cause unnecessary line wrapping at 80 columns and
unnecessarily long multi-line function prototypes.
<anip>
thx!
hofrat
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-01-07 9:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-12-23 10:01 [PATCH RFC] x86, boot: add missing declaration of string functions Nicholas Mc Guire
2017-01-05 8:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-01-07 9:37 ` Nicholas Mc Guire
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).