[PATCH 1/2] autofs: Only declare function when CONFIG_COMPAT is defined

[PATCH 1/2] autofs: Only declare function when CONFIG_COMPAT is defined

[Frederic Weisbecker]

From: Márton Németh <nm127@freemail.hu>

The patch solves the following warnings message when CONFIG_COMPAT
is not defined:

fs/autofs/root.c:30: warning: ‘autofs_root_compat_ioctl’ declared ‘static’ but never defined

Signed-off-by: Márton Németh <nm127@freemail.hu>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
---
 fs/autofs/root.c |    2 ++
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/autofs/root.c b/fs/autofs/root.c
index 11b1ea7..0c4ca81 100644
--- a/fs/autofs/root.c
+++ b/fs/autofs/root.c
@@ -27,7 +27,9 @@ static int autofs_root_unlink(struct inode *,struct dentry *);
 static int autofs_root_rmdir(struct inode *,struct dentry *);
 static int autofs_root_mkdir(struct inode *,struct dentry *,int);
 static long autofs_root_ioctl(struct file *,unsigned int,unsigned long);
+#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
 static long autofs_root_compat_ioctl(struct file *,unsigned int,unsigned long);
+#endif
 
 const struct file_operations autofs_root_operations = {
 	.llseek		= generic_file_llseek,
-- 
1.6.2.3

[PATCH 2/2] autofs4: Only declare function when CONFIG_COMPAT is defined

[Frederic Weisbecker]

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>

The patch solves the following warnings message when CONFIG_COMPAT
is not defined:

fs/autofs4/root.c:31: warning: ‘autofs4_root_compat_ioctl’ declared ‘static’ but never defined

Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Cc: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
---
 fs/autofs4/root.c |    2 ++
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/autofs4/root.c b/fs/autofs4/root.c
index cb1bd38..87f22ae 100644
--- a/fs/autofs4/root.c
+++ b/fs/autofs4/root.c
@@ -28,7 +28,9 @@ static int autofs4_dir_unlink(struct inode *,struct dentry *);
 static int autofs4_dir_rmdir(struct inode *,struct dentry *);
 static int autofs4_dir_mkdir(struct inode *,struct dentry *,int);
 static long autofs4_root_ioctl(struct file *,unsigned int,unsigned long);
+#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
 static long autofs4_root_compat_ioctl(struct file *,unsigned int,unsigned long);
+#endif
 static int autofs4_dir_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file);
 static struct dentry *autofs4_lookup(struct inode *,struct dentry *, struct nameidata *);
 static void *autofs4_follow_link(struct dentry *, struct nameidata *);
-- 
1.6.2.3

Re: [PATCH 1/2] autofs: Only declare function when CONFIG_COMPAT is defined

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Friday 24 September 2010 15:22:22 Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> From: Márton Németh <nm127@freemail.hu>
> 
> The patch solves the following warnings message when CONFIG_COMPAT
> is not defined:
> 
> fs/autofs/root.c:30: warning: ‘autofs_root_compat_ioctl’ declared ‘static’ but never defined
> 
> Signed-off-by: Márton Németh <nm127@freemail.hu>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>

My initial reaction was to put these into my bkl/vfs tree, but then I noticed
that they are against a 2.6.36 bug. Who's taking care of getting them upstream?

- Ian (maintainer)
- Arnd (who wrote the broken patch to start with)
- Frederic (who pushed the broken patch to Linus)
- Andrew (took them into -mm)

I don't care either way, just trying to make sure it gets there and we don't
all submit the same patch simultaneously.

The current state is annoying but harmless, so I could also just add the
patches to my 2.6.37 queue, which already has autofs patches for the BKL.

	Arnd

Re: [PATCH 1/2] autofs: Only declare function when CONFIG_COMPAT is defined

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 05:55:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 24 September 2010 15:22:22 Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > From: Márton Németh <nm127@freemail.hu>
> > 
> > The patch solves the following warnings message when CONFIG_COMPAT
> > is not defined:
> > 
> > fs/autofs/root.c:30: warning: ‘autofs_root_compat_ioctl’ declared ‘static’ but never defined
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Márton Németh <nm127@freemail.hu>
> > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> 
> My initial reaction was to put these into my bkl/vfs tree, but then I noticed
> that they are against a 2.6.36 bug. Who's taking care of getting them upstream?
> 
> - Ian (maintainer)
> - Arnd (who wrote the broken patch to start with)
> - Frederic (who pushed the broken patch to Linus)
> - Andrew (took them into -mm)
> 
> I don't care either way, just trying to make sure it gets there and we don't
> all submit the same patch simultaneously.
> 
> The current state is annoying but harmless, so I could also just add the
> patches to my 2.6.37 queue, which already has autofs patches for the BKL.
> 
> 	Arnd



I think Andrew has taken the autofs one, as I've received an mmotm notification.
I don't know about the autofs4 one though.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] autofs: Only declare function when CONFIG_COMPAT is defined

[Andrew Morton]

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 17:55:57 +0200
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:

> On Friday 24 September 2010 15:22:22 Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > From: M__rton N__meth <nm127@freemail.hu>
> > 
> > The patch solves the following warnings message when CONFIG_COMPAT
> > is not defined:
> > 
> > fs/autofs/root.c:30: warning: ___autofs_root_compat_ioctl___ declared ___static___ but never defined
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: M__rton N__meth <nm127@freemail.hu>
> > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> 
> My initial reaction was to put these into my bkl/vfs tree, but then I noticed
> that they are against a 2.6.36 bug. Who's taking care of getting them upstream?
> 
> - Ian (maintainer)
> - Arnd (who wrote the broken patch to start with)
> - Frederic (who pushed the broken patch to Linus)
> - Andrew (took them into -mm)
> 
> I don't care either way, just trying to make sure it gets there and we don't
> all submit the same patch simultaneously.

The usual deal: if it turns up in linux-next then I drop it.  If it
doesn't then I'll merge it into 2.6.37.

Re: [PATCH 1/2] autofs: Only declare function when CONFIG_COMPAT is defined

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 15:22, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Márton Németh <nm127@freemail.hu>
>
> The patch solves the following warnings message when CONFIG_COMPAT
> is not defined:
>
> fs/autofs/root.c:30: warning: ‘autofs_root_compat_ioctl’ declared ‘static’ but never defined
>
> Signed-off-by: Márton Németh <nm127@freemail.hu>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> ---
>  fs/autofs/root.c |    2 ++
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/autofs/root.c b/fs/autofs/root.c
> index 11b1ea7..0c4ca81 100644
> --- a/fs/autofs/root.c
> +++ b/fs/autofs/root.c
> @@ -27,7 +27,9 @@ static int autofs_root_unlink(struct inode *,struct dentry *);
>  static int autofs_root_rmdir(struct inode *,struct dentry *);
>  static int autofs_root_mkdir(struct inode *,struct dentry *,int);
>  static long autofs_root_ioctl(struct file *,unsigned int,unsigned long);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
>  static long autofs_root_compat_ioctl(struct file *,unsigned int,unsigned long);
> +#endif
>
>  const struct file_operations autofs_root_operations = {
>        .llseek         = generic_file_llseek,

An alternative (and IMHO better) fix would be to move autofs_root_operations[]
and autofs_root_inode_operations[] to the bottom of the file, and get rid of all
the forward declarations.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [PATCH 1/2] autofs: Only declare function when CONFIG_COMPAT is defined

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 09/30/2010 01:00 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 
> An alternative (and IMHO better) fix would be to move autofs_root_operations[]
> and autofs_root_inode_operations[] to the bottom of the file, and get rid of all
> the forward declarations.
> 

This is a legacy piece of code (autofs3) which has been long since
obsolete anyway... it's one thing to do a minimal patch to keep it
alive, another to restructure crap when it's already overdue for removal.
	
	-hpa

Re: [PATCH 1/2] autofs: Only declare function when CONFIG_COMPAT is defined

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 22:20, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> On 09/30/2010 01:00 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>
>> An alternative (and IMHO better) fix would be to move autofs_root_operations[]
>> and autofs_root_inode_operations[] to the bottom of the file, and get rid of all
>> the forward declarations.
>>
>
> This is a legacy piece of code (autofs3) which has been long since
> obsolete anyway... it's one thing to do a minimal patch to keep it
> alive, another to restructure crap when it's already overdue for removal.

You're right. But please note that autofs4 has the exact same issue.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [PATCH 1/2] autofs: Only declare function when CONFIG_COMPAT is defined

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Monday 27 September 2010 21:32:52 Andrew Morton wrote:
> > My initial reaction was to put these into my bkl/vfs tree, but then I noticed
> > that they are against a 2.6.36 bug. Who's taking care of getting them upstream?
> > 
> > - Ian (maintainer)
> > - Arnd (who wrote the broken patch to start with)
> > - Frederic (who pushed the broken patch to Linus)
> > - Andrew (took them into -mm)
> > 
> > I don't care either way, just trying to make sure it gets there and we don't
> > all submit the same patch simultaneously.
> 
> The usual deal: if it turns up in linux-next then I drop it.  If it
> doesn't then I'll merge it into 2.6.37.

I ended up putting them into my bkl/vfs tree after all now.

	Arnd